[yocto] Making Hob better.

[John Unland]

>I'm not sure a separate bootloaders layer would really make sense - we normally keep bootloaders either in OE-Core...
>Are there bootloader(s) that you are looking for that are currently missing?

Well I know I like to use U-Boot since it can go across multiple
archs. Well I guess it makes since to just have it in OE-Core. Other
than that that's what I wanted was U-Boot for x86 mostly....But if
It's in OE-Core then there's no need to abstract that out to a
different layer I guess.

Thanks.
John


On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Paul Eggleton
<paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On Tuesday 11 November 2014 11:51:23 John Unland wrote:
>> What about bootloaders? Where would I file a enhancement for different
>> boot loaders (U-Boot, Lilo, etc.). Would be good if we had a boot
>> loaders layer.
>
> I'm not sure a separate bootloaders layer would really make sense - we
> normally keep bootloaders either in OE-Core (where we currently have u-boot,
> grub, grub-efi, syslinux, gummiboot, etc.) or in specific BSPs where a specific
> bootloader is needed (or a specific version of an existing bootloader, e.g.
> BSPs shipping their own version of u-boot is common). FWIW there is also a
> meta-initramfs layer in the meta-openembedded repository which contains
> kexecboot.
>
> Are there bootloader(s) that you are looking for that are currently missing?
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> --
>
> Paul Eggleton
> Intel Open Source Technology Centre