[yocto] meta-zynq, was Re: any success with spartan6-lx9mb?

[Philip Balister]

On 09/07/2012 12:30 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 12-09-07 12:19 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 08:27 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Philip Balister<philip at balister.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 09/06/2012 06:19 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Speaking of zynq, I have a simple BSP here for the zc702 board:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/balister/meta-zynq
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a namespace collision, there is also:
>>>>>
>>>>>     http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-zynq/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Before creating the layer I checked:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/LayerIndex
>>>>
>>>> This is where layer information is collected. If a layer is not
>>>> listed here,
>>>> yo can expect namespace collisions.
>>>
>>> Sure, I don't argue with that, but I wasn't the original owner of the
>>> layer so
>>> I can't say why it was or wasn't put into the wiki .. I'm not really
>>> concerned
>>> about the minor oversight. They layer I pointed to was done under
>>> contract
>>> by xilinx themselves, and contributed to be maintained as a yocto
>>> BSP, so
>>> the layers name is not something that I control or can change.
>>>
>>> Other similar layers can use the same name if they want, I was
>>> pointing it
>>> out for reference, since I've had the same thing pointed out to me in
>>> the past ;)
>>
>> The bigger question is whether that layer is getting maintained. If it
>> isn't, it will likely get removed. I'd prefer it to get added to the
>> layer index and the namespace collision getting fixed.
>>
>> I was going to cc the maintainer but there isn't one listed in the
>> README which is a really bad start. The feedback I gave when this was
>> added has not all been acted upon either (multi-dtb.inc,
>> layencytop/sysprof nastiness).
>>
>> This puts it right at the top of my "likely to get removed soon" list.
>
> It is being maintained, updates are pending.
>
>>
>> Bruce: Since you have an idea who wrote it, could you find out whether
>> its going to get fixed (at the very least fix the README, add to the
>> index and resolve the namespace) or whether I should be deleting it.
>
> Don't delete it. Work is being done. This was supposed to be a primary
> repository for work, and it is the basis for spin off BSPs. There was
> a handoff issue between Wind River and Xylinx .. but I don't have all
> the details.
>
> And it's something that I'll be carrying forward and pulling kernel
> patches into linux-yocto on the next kernel bump.
>
> I'll do the simple updates to the README and put it in the layer index.

I'm concerned the kernel version is the yocto project version is based 
off 3.2 and the code in git.xilinx.com is based of 3.3 now.

I do not like either situation :)

But, working with vendors who provide git repos of their work, it is 
easier for people using the boards to track the vendor tree, and not 
spend time figuring out how to get from linux releases to the vendor tree.

I'd like to see the layers unifed, since we need to reduce confusion, 
but have some reservations about the layer on the Yocto Project server.

Philip

>
> Cheers,
>
> Bruce
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yocto mailing list
>> yocto at yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>
>