[meta-freescale] [meta-freescale-layer][PATCH 01/67] remove not supported e500v2 machines

[Robert E. Cochran]

On 07/13/2016 06:56 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Ting Liu <ting.liu at nxp.com> wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Otavio Salvador [mailto:otavio.salvador at ossystems.com.br]
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 9:39 PM
>>> To: Ting Liu <ting.liu at nxp.com>
>>> Cc: meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org
>>> Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] [meta-freescale-layer][PATCH 01/67] remove
>>> not supported e500v2 machines
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 7:41 AM,  <ting.liu at nxp.com> wrote:
>>>> From: Ting Liu <ting.liu at freescale.com>
>>>>
>>>> Remove the below machines which are not supported/tested:
>>>> bsc9131rdb, bsc9132qds, p1010rdb, p1020rdb, p1021rdb, p1022ds
>>>> p1023rdb, p1025twr, p2020rdb
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ting Liu <ting.liu at nxp.com>
>>> i understand why you are doing this but I don't support this. There are users
>>> out there using those and as such NXP should keep those supported. We use
>>> same rule for i.MX and what we do is moving the old BSP machines for
>>> mainline kernel/u-boot so people has at least an upgrade path.
>> [Liu Ting-B28495] I understand your points. But these boards are not tested with the latest kernel/u-boot/fm-ucode/qe-ucode/etc.
>> We want to remove them to avoid confusion.
>>
>> It is easy to add back the machine configuration files. The recipes for kernel/u-boot/etc. should be rolled back to the previous revision on which these boards are supported too. Anyway, this need effort to verify, including build and function.
> I am not the owner of those machines, on the BSP, so I cannot block
> the removal. For the i.MX I always preferred to move the machines for
> the mainline kernel/u-boot and keep them around so people could use
> and improve them. This was a way to empower the community and provide
> a long term solution for our users.

Once things stabilize, I would like to patch back in support for the 
p1010rdb and t1040rdb-64b.  Let me know if there is an objection to this.


>