From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <1317668520.12684.8.camel@ted>
References: <4E8A0380.1030502@linux.intel.com> <1317668520.12684.8.camel@ted>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:07:47 -0500
Message-ID: <1317668867.2323.24.camel@elmorro>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: Yocto Project <yocto@yoctoproject.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>, "Wold, Saul" <saul.wold@intel.com>
Subject: Re: GRUB fix for 1.1: Preferred approach for default grub version
Precedence: list
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 12:01 -0700, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 11:48 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > When grub2 was merged int oe-core, it became the default (rather than
> > being explicitly requested by the 64b meta-intel BSPs). This breaks the
> > live install on 32b systems, like the n450 - installing grub v1.99 with
> > a grub v1 config.
> > 
> > We have a couple options on how to fix this.
> > 
> > 1) Set PREFERRED_PROVIDER_grub="0.97" in all 32b x86 machine configs
> > 2) Set DEFAULT_PREFERENCE="-1" in the grub_1.99.bb recipe which would
> >    affect all of oe-core.
> > 3) Some alternate approach which would be the equivalent of
> >    DEFAULT_PREFERENCE, but only for meta-yocto BSPs or the poky
> >    "distro".
> > 
> > Given the time frame, I'd prefer to agree on the approach before writing
> > and testing patches. Preferences?
> 
> I thought I'd been assured grub2 worked fine for our 32 and 64 bit
> platforms? :/.
> 
> The correct question here is why doesn't grub2 work on 32 bit platforms?
> 

I did test it with both 32-bit and 64-bit BSPs in meta-intel, so it
should work for the n450 too.

Tom

> The answer might be "we need for time than is available in the 1.1
> release to fix it" but I'd at least like to see the answer to the
> question before we start with workarounds.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
>