[meta-freescale] Please review the proposal of FSL Yocto layers reorg - updated version on 28-Feb

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:17 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
<B29882 at freescale.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Otavio Salvador
> <otavio at ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Luo Zhenhua-B19537
>> <B19537 at freescale.com> wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for the comments.
>>>
>>> I did some update according to the feedback and removed some bits of internal activity. Please review and comment.
>>
>> From the update, I think it is much more inline with I believe it'd be
>> the best way of doing it. Personally I found two things which could be
>> further discussed:
>>
>> * meta-fsl-layerscale:
>>
>>   As Vybrid it could have the BSP part inside meta-fsl-arm and
>> meta-fsl-ppc; I think the not BSP parts could go to
>> meta-fsl-networking or similar and keep the BSP part unified. This
>> would make easier for users and also make it easier for vendors to
>> make customized BSPs using this as a common base.
>
> I think layerscape and vybrid recipes should go in their own
> SDK/distro layers (what does not belong in meta-fsl-{ppc,arm})

>From my point of view, BSP could go to meta-fsl-{ppc,arm} and
networking/multimedia go to the respective layers.

>> * meta-freescale-sdk:
>>
>>   It is not clear from the description what it would have inside. If
>> it are going to have poky and all other layers the name is misleading.
>> freescale-sdk or freescale-yocto-sdk would be better. Could you
>> clarify it?
>
> I like the idea of meta-freescale-yocto-sdk since we are based on that.

It all depends if it will provide poky or not. If it does, meta prefix
ought to be dropped. meta prefix is used for layers and not complete
SDKs so it will be confusing.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio at ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br