[yocto] [meta-rockchip][PATCH 2/7] machine: Add machine file for the rk3288 linux Boards

[Jacob Chen]

Hi,


Eddie Cai wrote on 2017年02月09日 16:20:
> HI
>
> 2017-02-09 14:49 GMT+08:00 Jacob Chen <jacob2.chen at rock-chips.com>:
>> Hi
>>
>>
>> Trevor Woerner wrote on 2017年01月28日 03:41:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Romain Perier <romain.perier at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Could you:
>> - Make one patch per new machine file and not one patch for all new added
>> machine
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> Are all of these machines actual devices? The evb one doesn't sound real.
>>
>> Are all of these machines released and available for purchase? I've
>> heard of the tinkerboard (although I can't seem to find one I can
>> actually buy) but I haven't heard of the fennec.
>>
>>
>> I think i should only leave tinker board here.
>> We have a lot of boards which are not open to the public,  it's not suitable
>> to push them to the community.
>>
>> - Add a clear @DESCRIPTION for each board, see an example here:
>> https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-rockchip/tree/conf/machine/firefly-rk3288.conf
>> - Write a clear and an understandable commit message for your new patches
>>
>> @Trevor: What do you think about this rk-linux.inc ? I don't like this,
>> either its name and what it contains.
>>
>> First off, I think it's really great to see people contributing to
>> meta-rockchip! :-)
>>
>> This entire set of patches seems to be adding "official" support for
>> the rockchip devices; in other words, these recipes will help you to
>> create builds that use the official rockchip sources. That is great.
>> But I think a good BSP gives a user all the possibilities but then
>> leaves the final decision up to them.
>>
>>
>> : ) That's the reason why we try to push patches to here, we want that
>> "meta-rockchip" can
>> build between vendor old kernel/new kernel/old u-boot/new u-boot and
>> mainline kernel/u-boot
>>   well.  Community people might help develop mainline things.
>>
>> So I agree with Romain, I think the name could use more work. It would
>> be nice if this set of patches included something in the name that let
>> the user know these build from official sources. Then the user could
>> decide whether they want to use the official rockchip sources, or
>> whether they want to build from upstream. So I'm not opposed to the
>> idea of adding recipes for official sources, I'd like like to see them
>> added in a way that leaves the decision with the user.
>>
>>
>>
>> I added rk-linux.inc because i need a place to set up verndor-BSP default
>> settings.
>> I want that the user can choose various combinations by change the include
>> file in machine file.
>> e.g:
>>      rk-linux.inc for linux-rockchip 4.4 + u-boot-rockchip-nex-dev
>>      rk-linux.inc + rk-uboot.inc for linux-rockchip + u-boot-rockchip
>>
>>      rk-linux.inc for linux-mainline + u-boot-mainline
I send the wrong draft due to the poor network... Please ignore the e.g...

What i think it's that the users should always get image with  all 
features enabled  with default settings.
I will be killed if i let them to set each settings one by one in 
local.conf to enable features....
ok to change name and split file, but i think the things it contianed is 
needed.

>> BTW, which name you think is better?
> What about follow raspberrypi?
> ├── include
> │   ├── rpi-base.inc
> │   ├── rpi-default-providers.inc
> │   ├── rpi-default-settings.inc
> │   ├── rpi-default-versions.inc
> │   └── tune-arm1176jzf-s.inc
> ├── raspberrypi0.conf
> ├── raspberrypi2.conf
> ├── raspberrypi3.conf
> └── raspberrypi.conf
>

split rk-linux.inc into
rk-base.inc
rk-vendor-providers.inc
rk-vendor-settings.inc
rk-vendor-versions.inc
rk-community-providers.inc
rk-community-settings.inc
rk-community-versions.inc

?

Hmmm, it look more clearly than rk-linux.inc.

>>
>> That's it for now.
>> Thanks for your patches
>>
>> +1 :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> yocto mailing list
>> yocto at yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>>