meta-ti?????
I know the examples in the documentation of Yocto use meta-intel a lot to get the board specific BSPs like meta-crownbay or meta-n450.
Is there a meta-ti or similar that gets you the meta-beagleboard and meta-pandaboard? If not how do you clone and checkout the pandaboard BPS?
Jim A
Quoted 5 lines · Jim Abernathy
I know the examples in the documentation of Yocto use meta-intel a lot to get the board specific BSPs like meta-crownbay or meta-n450.
Is there a meta-ti or similar that gets you the meta-beagleboard and meta-pandaboard? If not how do you clone and checkout the pandaboard BPS?
http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/LayerIndex
Signature · 5 lines
Christopher Larson clarson at kergoth dot com Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus Maintainer - Tslib Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics
Op 22 dec. 2011, om 16:06 heeft Jim Abernathy het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 3 lines
I know the examples in the documentation of Yocto use meta-intel a lot to get the board specific BSPs like meta-crownbay or meta-n450.
Is there a meta-ti or similar that gets you the meta-beagleboard and meta-pandaboard? If not how do you clone and checkout the pandaboard BPS?
http://git.angstrom-distribution.org/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/meta-texasinstruments/
It has a README in there on how to set it up, read it and follow it precisely.
Quoted 11 lines · On Friday 23 December 2011 09:28:31 Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 22 dec. 2011, om 16:06 heeft Jim Abernathy het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 6 lines
I know the examples in the documentation of Yocto use meta-intel a lot to get the board specific BSPs like meta-crownbay or meta-n450.
Is there a meta-ti or similar that gets you the meta-beagleboard and meta-pandaboard? If not how do you clone and checkout the pandaboard BPS?
http://git.angstrom-distribution.org/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/meta-texasinstruments/
It has a README in there on how to set it up, read it and follow it precisely.
Just out of interest, why does meta-texasinstruments depend on meta-angstrom?
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 09:37 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 8 lines · On Friday 23 December 2011 09:28:31 Koen Kooi wrote:
Quoted 7 lines
Op 22 dec. 2011, om 16:06 heeft Jim Abernathy het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 6 lines
I know the examples in the documentation of Yocto use meta-intel a lot to get the board specific BSPs like meta-crownbay or meta-n450.
Is there a meta-ti or similar that gets you the meta-beagleboard and meta-pandaboard? If not how do you clone and checkout the pandaboard BPS?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
http://git.angstrom-distribution.org/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/meta-texasinstruments/
It has a README in there on how to set it up, read it and follow it precisely.
Just out of interest, why does meta-texasinstruments depend on meta-angstrom?
It needs extra things in overrides and reuses tasks from there.
Quoted 11 lines · Koen Kooi
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 09:37 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 8 lines · On Friday 23 December 2011 09:28:31 Koen Kooi wrote:
Quoted 7 lines
Op 22 dec. 2011, om 16:06 heeft Jim Abernathy het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 6 lines
I know the examples in the documentation of Yocto use meta-intel a lot to get the board specific BSPs like meta-crownbay or meta-n450.
Is there a meta-ti or similar that gets you the meta-beagleboard and meta-pandaboard? If not how do you clone and checkout the pandaboard BPS?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
http://git.angstrom-distribution.org/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/meta-texasinstruments/
It has a README in there on how to set it up, read it and follow it precisely.
Just out of interest, why does meta-texasinstruments depend on meta-angstrom?
It needs extra things in overrides and reuses tasks from there.
Sorry for the follow-up, but if I clone the meta-texasinstruments bsp repository and checkout the pandaboard-rework branch, how does that relate to the Yocto branch/bsp yocto/standard/pandaboard on the Yocto site?
Being a Yocto newbie, it's hard enough to understand all the branches on the yocto site. Relating the meta-angstrom is confusing.
The light bulb has now gone on yet :-)
Jim A
Quoted 4 lines
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 14:10 heeft James Abernathy het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 19 lines · Koen Kooi
Quoted 17 lines
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 09:37 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 13 lines · On Friday 23 December 2011 09:28:31 Koen Kooi wrote:
Quoted 11 lines
Op 22 dec. 2011, om 16:06 heeft Jim Abernathy het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 6 lines
I know the examples in the documentation of Yocto use meta-intel a lot to get the board specific BSPs like meta-crownbay or meta-n450.
Is there a meta-ti or similar that gets you the meta-beagleboard and meta-pandaboard? If not how do you clone and checkout the pandaboard BPS?
http://git.angstrom-distribution.org/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/meta-texasinstruments/
It has a README in there on how to set it up, read it and follow it precisely.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
Just out of interest, why does meta-texasinstruments depend on meta-angstrom?
It needs extra things in overrides and reuses tasks from there.
Sorry for the follow-up, but if I clone the meta-texasinstruments bsp repository and checkout the pandaboard-rework branch, how does that relate to the Yocto branch/bsp yocto/standard/pandaboard on the Yocto site?
It doesn't.
Quoted 1 line
Being a Yocto newbie, it's hard enough to understand all the branches on the yocto site. Relating the meta-angstrom is confusing.
No, yocto (or is it poky? noone knows) has confusing messaging, It's best to find the official BSP for the board you use and follow the instructions in there and ignore anything else.
Quoted 4 lines · On Friday 23 December 2011 14:23:53 Koen Kooi wrote:
Quoted 2 lines
Being a Yocto newbie, it's hard enough to understand all the branches on the yocto site. Relating the meta-angstrom is confusing.
No, yocto (or is it poky? noone knows)
Officially, Poky is the build system, Yocto is the umbrella project which also includes a number of other sub-projects (swabber, pseudo, etc.). There are some that use Yocto to refer to the build system; I'm not sure that does a great deal of harm nor is it really relevant to this discussion.
Quoted 3 lines
has confusing messaging, It's best to
find the official BSP for the board you use and follow the instructions in there and ignore anything else.
Personally I think this is a bit disappointing. The Yocto Project and the move to OE-Core is supposed to provide us a way to mix and match hardware support with available software packages. The apparent tying of meta-texasinstruments to meta-angstrom goes against that philosophy, IMHO. I haven't yet heard a compelling technical argument for why that should be necessary.
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Quoted 15 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 4 lines · On Friday 23 December 2011 14:23:53 Koen Kooi wrote:
Quoted 2 lines
Being a Yocto newbie, it's hard enough to understand all the branches on the yocto site. Relating the meta-angstrom is confusing.
No, yocto (or is it poky? noone knows)
Officially, Poky is the build system, Yocto is the umbrella project which also includes a number of other sub-projects (swabber, pseudo, etc.). There are some that use Yocto to refer to the build system; I'm not sure that does a great deal of harm nor is it really relevant to this discussion.
Quoted 3 lines
has confusing messaging, It's best to
find the official BSP for the board you use and follow the instructions in there and ignore anything else.
Quoted 5 lines
Personally I think this is a bit disappointing. The Yocto Project and the move to OE-Core is supposed to provide us a way to mix and match hardware support with available software packages. The apparent tying of meta-texasinstruments to meta-angstrom goes against that philosophy, IMHO. I haven't yet heard a compelling technical argument for why that should be necessary.
BSP's shoudl contain image recipes that create useful images for the hardware. Images often tend to contain distro specific bits and pieces. This leads to this sort of (problematic) dependencies between layers.
This is good area for further study since the problem will likely increase without careful thought. I'd also suggest not depending on the BSP guys to do this, since I suspect their corporate overlords care more about the output and customer satisfaction then internal "details".
Philip
Quoted 21 lines · James Abernathy
Quoted 18 lines · Koen Kooi
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 09:37 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 14 lines · On Friday 23 December 2011 09:28:31 Koen Kooi wrote:
Quoted 11 lines
Op 22 dec. 2011, om 16:06 heeft Jim Abernathy het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 6 lines
I know the examples in the documentation of Yocto use meta-intel a lot to get the board specific BSPs like meta-crownbay or meta-n450.
Is there a meta-ti or similar that gets you the meta-beagleboard and meta-pandaboard? If not how do you clone and checkout the pandaboard BPS?
http://git.angstrom-distribution.org/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/meta-texasinstruments/
It has a README in there on how to set it up, read it and follow it precisely.
Just out of interest, why does meta-texasinstruments depend on meta-angstrom?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
It needs extra things in overrides and reuses tasks from there.
Sorry for the follow-up, but if I clone the meta-texasinstruments bsp repository and checkout the pandaboard-rework branch, how does that relate to the Yocto branch/bsp yocto/standard/pandaboard on the Yocto site?
Being a Yocto newbie, it's hard enough to understand all the branches on the yocto site. Relating the meta-angstrom is confusing.
The light bulb has now gone on yet :-)
I would guess the panda support in the Yocto BSP branch are there to show Yocto (a word with many different meanings to different people) can build stuff for non-Intel hardware. However if I were building for a Panda, I would use the meta-texas-instruments stuff because I would expect it to support all the bits of hardware (3D etc) available on the Pandaboard.
The Panda and Beagleboards are readily available so they make good demonstration cases for BSP's, but enabling all the features on these SoC's is a lot more work.
Philip
Quoted 19 lines · James Abernathy
Quoted 16 lines · Koen Kooi
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 09:37 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 13 lines · On Friday 23 December 2011 09:28:31 Koen Kooi wrote:
Quoted 11 lines
Op 22 dec. 2011, om 16:06 heeft Jim Abernathy het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 6 lines
I know the examples in the documentation of Yocto use meta-intel a lot to get the board specific BSPs like meta-crownbay or meta-n450.
Is there a meta-ti or similar that gets you the meta-beagleboard and meta-pandaboard? If not how do you clone and checkout the pandaboard BPS?
http://git.angstrom-distribution.org/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/meta-texasinstruments/
It has a README in there on how to set it up, read it and follow it precisely.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
Just out of interest, why does meta-texasinstruments depend on meta-angstrom?
It needs extra things in overrides and reuses tasks from there.
Sorry for the follow-up, but if I clone the meta-texasinstruments bsp repository and checkout the pandaboard-rework branch, how does that relate to the Yocto branch/bsp yocto/standard/pandaboard on the Yocto site?
I'll jump into the middle of the thread, and answer a couple of specific questions and leave the larger what depends on what, and where things evolve and why .. for another day.
The yocto/standard/pandaboard in the 3.0 kernel tree is the refresh/update of a reference BSP for the 3.0 (and newer) kernel(s).
But what you are seeing ,in the linux-yocto kernel tree, is a work in progress at the moment, since there is an associated layer that is a combo layer, and uses the layer tooling to build on top work that has already been done by TI and other distro layers.
Since, as already been covered in this thread, there (often) multiple places support for any given board can be found. What you use, all depends on what you are looking for.
The linux-yocto variant is built/tested with a yocto + oe-core base and receives updates of features/fixes that other BSPs in the tree gets. (note: I'm not claiming this is unique, just that it is done using the yocto kernel tooling ). A common set of features and docs would accompany any related BSPs. In this case, the BSP was contributed to the project on the 3.0 kernel, so I merged it into the tree to have that integrated support with as few layers as possible.
If you want the angstrom/TI pandaboard, doing what Koen suggests is the ticket. Look at those layers, follow their READMEs and you'll be good to go.
Cheers,
Bruce
Quoted 16 lines
Being a Yocto newbie, it's hard enough to understand all the branches on the yocto site. Relating the meta-angstrom is confusing.
The light bulb has now gone on yet :-)
Jim A
Quoted 4 lines
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Quoted 32 lines · Bruce Ashfield
Quoted 24 lines · James Abernathy
Quoted 21 lines · Koen Kooi
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 09:37 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 17 lines · On Friday 23 December 2011 09:28:31 Koen Kooi wrote:
Quoted 5 lines
Op 22 dec. 2011, om 16:06 heeft Jim Abernathy het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 4 lines
I know the examples in the documentation of Yocto use meta-intel a lot
to get the board specific BSPs like meta-crownbay or meta-n450.Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Is there a meta-ti or similar that gets you the meta-beagleboard and meta-pandaboard? If not how do you clone and checkout the pandaboard BPS?
http://git.angstrom-distribution.org/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/meta-texasinstruments/
It has a README in there on how to set it up, read it and follow it precisely.
Just out of interest, why does meta-texasinstruments depend on meta-angstrom?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
It needs extra things in overrides and reuses tasks from there.
Sorry for the follow-up, but if I clone the meta-texasinstruments bsp repository and checkout the pandaboard-rework branch,
how does that relate to the Yocto branch/bsp yocto/standard/pandaboard on the Yocto site?
Quoted 6 lines
I'll jump into the middle of the thread, and answer a couple of specific questions and leave the larger what depends on what, and where things evolve and why .. for another day.
The yocto/standard/pandaboard in the 3.0 kernel tree is the refresh/update of a reference BSP for the 3.0 (and newer) kernel(s).
Who is the intended audience of this BSP? The Angstrom/meta-to layer is obviously intended for people using TI hardware and all the associated peripherals. Without defining your audience better, this jsut adds to the confusion end users are experiencing with all the words and layers being used in emails. This is becoming a real problem as new users enter the project.
Philip
Quoted 51 lines
But what you are seeing ,in the linux-yocto kernel tree, is a work in progress at the moment, since there is an associated layer that is a combo layer, and uses the layer tooling to build on top work that has already been done by TI and other distro layers.
Since, as already been covered in this thread, there (often) multiple places support for any given board can be found. What you use, all depends on what you are looking for.
The linux-yocto variant is built/tested with a yocto + oe-core base and receives updates of features/fixes that other BSPs in the tree gets. (note: I'm not claiming this is unique, just that it is done using the yocto kernel tooling ). A common set of features and docs would accompany any related BSPs. In this case, the BSP was contributed to the project on the 3.0 kernel, so I merged it into the tree to have that integrated support with as few layers as possible.
If you want the angstrom/TI pandaboard, doing what Koen suggests is the ticket. Look at those layers, follow their READMEs and you'll be good to go.
Cheers,
Bruce
Quoted 13 lines
Being a Yocto newbie, it's hard enough to understand all the branches on the yocto site. Relating the meta-angstrom is confusing.
The light bulb has now gone on yet :-)
Jim A
Quoted 4 lines
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yoctoQuoted 4 lines
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Quoted 40 lines · Philip Balister
Quoted 32 lines · Bruce Ashfield
Quoted 24 lines · James Abernathy
Quoted 21 lines · Koen Kooi
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 09:37 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 17 lines · On Friday 23 December 2011 09:28:31 Koen Kooi wrote:
Quoted 5 lines
Op 22 dec. 2011, om 16:06 heeft Jim Abernathy het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 4 lines
I know the examples in the documentation of Yocto use meta-intel a lot
to get the board specific BSPs like meta-crownbay or meta-n450.Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Is there a meta-ti or similar that gets you the meta-beagleboard and meta-pandaboard? If not how do you clone and checkout the pandaboard BPS?
http://git.angstrom-distribution.org/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/meta-texasinstruments/
It has a README in there on how to set it up, read it and follow it precisely.
Just out of interest, why does meta-texasinstruments depend on meta-angstrom?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
It needs extra things in overrides and reuses tasks from there.
Sorry for the follow-up, but if I clone the meta-texasinstruments bsp repository and checkout the pandaboard-rework branch,
how does that relate to the Yocto branch/bsp yocto/standard/pandaboard on the Yocto site?Quoted 6 lines
I'll jump into the middle of the thread, and answer a couple of specific questions and leave the larger what depends on what, and where things evolve and why .. for another day.
The yocto/standard/pandaboard in the 3.0 kernel tree is the refresh/update of a reference BSP for the 3.0 (and newer) kernel(s).
Quoted 6 lines
Who is the intended audience of this BSP? The Angstrom/meta-to layer is obviously intended for people using TI hardware and all the associated peripherals. Without defining your audience better, this jsut adds to the confusion end users are experiencing with all the words and layers being used in emails. This is becoming a real problem as new users enter the project.
Quite simply, the audience that needs a particular kernel version and feature set, with the tooling to transition to a supported (i.e not the yocto one) BSP.
Cheers,
Bruce
Quoted 54 lines
Philip
Quoted 51 lines
But what you are seeing ,in the linux-yocto kernel tree, is a work in progress at the moment, since there is an associated layer that is a combo layer, and uses the layer tooling to build on top work that has already been done by TI and other distro layers.
Since, as already been covered in this thread, there (often) multiple places support for any given board can be found. What you use, all depends on what you are looking for.
The linux-yocto variant is built/tested with a yocto + oe-core base and receives updates of features/fixes that other BSPs in the tree gets. (note: I'm not claiming this is unique, just that it is done using the yocto kernel tooling ). A common set of features and docs would accompany any related BSPs. In this case, the BSP was contributed to the project on the 3.0 kernel, so I merged it into the tree to have that integrated support with as few layers as possible.
If you want the angstrom/TI pandaboard, doing what Koen suggests is the ticket. Look at those layers, follow their READMEs and you'll be good to go.
Cheers,
Bruce
Quoted 13 lines
Being a Yocto newbie, it's hard enough to understand all the branches on the yocto site. Relating the meta-angstrom is confusing.
The light bulb has now gone on yet :-)
Jim A
Quoted 4 lines
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yoctoQuoted 4 lines
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 18:45 heeft Bruce Ashfield het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 48 lines · Philip Balister
Quoted 40 lines · Bruce Ashfield
Quoted 32 lines · James Abernathy
Quoted 24 lines · Koen Kooi
Quoted 22 lines
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 09:37 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 17 lines · On Friday 23 December 2011 09:28:31 Koen Kooi wrote:
Quoted 5 lines
Op 22 dec. 2011, om 16:06 heeft Jim Abernathy het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 4 lines
I know the examples in the documentation of Yocto use meta-intel a lot
to get the board specific BSPs like meta-crownbay or meta-n450.Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Is there a meta-ti or similar that gets you the meta-beagleboard and meta-pandaboard? If not how do you clone and checkout the pandaboard BPS?
http://git.angstrom-distribution.org/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/meta-texasinstruments/
It has a README in there on how to set it up, read it and follow it precisely.
Just out of interest, why does meta-texasinstruments depend on meta-angstrom?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
It needs extra things in overrides and reuses tasks from there.
Sorry for the follow-up, but if I clone the meta-texasinstruments bsp repository and checkout the pandaboard-rework branch,
how does that relate to the Yocto branch/bsp yocto/standard/pandaboard on the Yocto site?Quoted 6 lines
I'll jump into the middle of the thread, and answer a couple of specific questions and leave the larger what depends on what, and where things evolve and why .. for another day.
The yocto/standard/pandaboard in the 3.0 kernel tree is the refresh/update of a reference BSP for the 3.0 (and newer) kernel(s).
Quoted 6 lines
Who is the intended audience of this BSP? The Angstrom/meta-to layer is obviously intended for people using TI hardware and all the associated peripherals. Without defining your audience better, this jsut adds to the confusion end users are experiencing with all the words and layers being used in emails. This is becoming a real problem as new users enter the project.
Quoted 3 lines
Quite simply, the audience that needs a particular kernel version and feature set, with the tooling to transition to a supported (i.e not the yocto one) BSP.
You do realize that by doing this without informing anyone involved with the official pandaboard BSP the net effect is negative? And by 'negative' I mean "severe annoyance" among other things.
Quoted 51 lines · Koen Kooi
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 18:45 heeft Bruce Ashfield het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 48 lines · Philip Balister
Quoted 46 lines · Bruce Ashfield
Quoted 32 lines · James Abernathy
Quoted 24 lines · Koen Kooi
Quoted 22 lines
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 09:37 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 17 lines · On Friday 23 December 2011 09:28:31 Koen Kooi wrote:
Quoted 5 lines
Op 22 dec. 2011, om 16:06 heeft Jim Abernathy het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 4 lines
I know the examples in the documentation of Yocto use meta-intel a lot
to get the board specific BSPs like meta-crownbay or meta-n450.Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Is there a meta-ti or similar that gets you the meta-beagleboard and meta-pandaboard? If not how do you clone and checkout the pandaboard BPS?
http://git.angstrom-distribution.org/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/meta-texasinstruments/
It has a README in there on how to set it up, read it and follow it precisely.
Just out of interest, why does meta-texasinstruments depend on meta-angstrom?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
It needs extra things in overrides and reuses tasks from there.
Sorry for the follow-up, but if I clone the meta-texasinstruments bsp repository and checkout the pandaboard-rework branch,
how does that relate to the Yocto branch/bsp yocto/standard/pandaboard on the Yocto site?Quoted 6 lines
I'll jump into the middle of the thread, and answer a couple of specific questions and leave the larger what depends on what, and where things evolve and why .. for another day.
The yocto/standard/pandaboard in the 3.0 kernel tree is the refresh/update of a reference BSP for the 3.0 (and newer) kernel(s).
Who is the intended audience of this BSP? The Angstrom/meta-to layer is obviously intended for people using TI hardware and all the associated peripherals. Without defining your audience better, this jsut adds to the confusion end users are experiencing with all the words and layers being used in emails. This is becoming a real problem as new users enter the project.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quite simply, the audience that needs a particular kernel version and feature set, with the tooling to transition to a supported (i.e not the yocto one) BSP.
You do realize that by doing this without informing anyone involved with the official pandaboard BSP the net effect is negative? And by 'negative' I mean "severe annoyance" among other things.
.. and why would you assume that precisely that hadn't been done ? It has been, via management channels at multiple companies and organizations and is exactly why I said "a layer you can't get" and "work in progress".
So please, no need to jump to anything resembling 'annoyance'. There's plenty of that to go around, and it isn't constructive.
Bruce
Quoted 7 lines
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Quoted 58 lines · Bruce Ashfield
Quoted 51 lines · Koen Kooi
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 18:45 heeft Bruce Ashfield het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 48 lines · Philip Balister
Quoted 46 lines · Bruce Ashfield
Quoted 32 lines · James Abernathy
Quoted 24 lines · Koen Kooi
Quoted 22 lines
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 09:37 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 17 lines · On Friday 23 December 2011 09:28:31 Koen Kooi wrote:
Quoted 5 lines
Op 22 dec. 2011, om 16:06 heeft Jim Abernathy het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 4 lines
I know the examples in the documentation of Yocto use meta-intel a lot
to get the board specific BSPs like meta-crownbay or meta-n450.Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Is there a meta-ti or similar that gets you the meta-beagleboard and meta-pandaboard? If not how do you clone and checkout the pandaboard BPS?
http://git.angstrom-distribution.org/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/meta-texasinstruments/
It has a README in there on how to set it up, read it and follow it precisely.
Just out of interest, why does meta-texasinstruments depend on meta-angstrom?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
It needs extra things in overrides and reuses tasks from there.
Sorry for the follow-up, but if I clone the meta-texasinstruments bsp repository and checkout the pandaboard-rework branch,
how does that relate to the Yocto branch/bsp yocto/standard/pandaboard on the Yocto site?Quoted 6 lines
I'll jump into the middle of the thread, and answer a couple of specific questions and leave the larger what depends on what, and where things evolve and why .. for another day.
The yocto/standard/pandaboard in the 3.0 kernel tree is the refresh/update of a reference BSP for the 3.0 (and newer) kernel(s).
Who is the intended audience of this BSP? The Angstrom/meta-to layer is obviously intended for people using TI hardware and all the associated peripherals. Without defining your audience better, this jsut adds to the confusion end users are experiencing with all the words and layers being used in emails. This is becoming a real problem as new users enter the project.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quite simply, the audience that needs a particular kernel version and feature set, with the tooling to transition to a supported (i.e not the yocto one) BSP.
You do realize that by doing this without informing anyone involved with the official pandaboard BSP the net effect is negative? And by 'negative' I mean "severe annoyance" among other things.
Quoted 7 lines
.. and why would you assume that precisely that hadn't been done ? It has been, via management channels at multiple companies and organizations and is exactly why I said "a layer you can't get" and "work in progress".
So please, no need to jump to anything resembling 'annoyance'. There's plenty of that to go around, and it isn't constructive.
I think it would be nice if we had a wiki document which listed various BSPs for a given platform that are available using the given layers and some words differentiating them. That can help end users in understanding and deciding which to use.
Quoted 64 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 63 lines · Bruce Ashfield
Quoted 51 lines · Koen Kooi
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 18:45 heeft Bruce Ashfield het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 48 lines · Philip Balister
Quoted 46 lines · Bruce Ashfield
Quoted 32 lines · James Abernathy
Quoted 24 lines · Koen Kooi
Quoted 22 lines
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 09:37 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 17 lines · On Friday 23 December 2011 09:28:31 Koen Kooi wrote:
Quoted 5 lines
Op 22 dec. 2011, om 16:06 heeft Jim Abernathy het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 4 lines
I know the examples in the documentation of Yocto use meta-intel a lot
to get the board specific BSPs like meta-crownbay or meta-n450.Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Is there a meta-ti or similar that gets you the meta-beagleboard and meta-pandaboard? If not how do you clone and checkout the pandaboard BPS?
http://git.angstrom-distribution.org/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/meta-texasinstruments/
It has a README in there on how to set it up, read it and follow it precisely.
Just out of interest, why does meta-texasinstruments depend on meta-angstrom?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
It needs extra things in overrides and reuses tasks from there.
Sorry for the follow-up, but if I clone the meta-texasinstruments bsp repository and checkout the pandaboard-rework branch,
how does that relate to the Yocto branch/bsp yocto/standard/pandaboard on the Yocto site?Quoted 6 lines
I'll jump into the middle of the thread, and answer a couple of specific questions and leave the larger what depends on what, and where things evolve and why .. for another day.
The yocto/standard/pandaboard in the 3.0 kernel tree is the refresh/update of a reference BSP for the 3.0 (and newer) kernel(s).
Who is the intended audience of this BSP? The Angstrom/meta-to layer is obviously intended for people using TI hardware and all the associated peripherals. Without defining your audience better, this jsut adds to the confusion end users are experiencing with all the words and layers being used in emails. This is becoming a real problem as new users enter the project.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quite simply, the audience that needs a particular kernel version and feature set, with the tooling to transition to a supported (i.e not the yocto one) BSP.
You do realize that by doing this without informing anyone involved with the official pandaboard BSP the net effect is negative? And by 'negative' I mean "severe annoyance" among other things.
.. and why would you assume that precisely that hadn't been done ? It has been, via management channels at multiple companies and organizations and is exactly why I said "a layer you can't get" and "work in progress".
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
So please, no need to jump to anything resembling 'annoyance'. There's plenty of that to go around, and it isn't constructive.
I think it would be nice if we had a wiki document which listed various BSPs for a given platform that are available using the given layers and some words differentiating them. That can help end users in understanding and deciding which to use.
AFAIK there are plans in this area for the 1.2 timeframe, perhaps via the BSP portal that TomZ was creating. Something linked from the wiki pages that list all the available layers would be the logical place to locate something like this as well.
Richard may have more insight as to whether or not something is planned like this.
Cheers,
Bruce