[meta-ti] Lastest Patches

[Maupin, Chase]

From: meta-ti-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-ti-bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Cooper Jr., Franklin
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:50 AM
To: Dmytriyenko, Denys
Cc: meta-ti at yoctoproject.org
Subject: [meta-ti] Lastest Patches

I am not in favor for some of these new namespace changes for legacy recipes. There are a lot of history behind those recipes names (arago-classic) including the PSP version. Old documentation also refer to that PSP release http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/DaVinci_PSP_03.21.00.04_Release_Notes

Ex
u-boot-am180x: modify am180x specific version to use new namespace feature

--- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2010.12-psp03.21.00.04.sdk.bb

+++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-am180x_2010.12.bb



[CEM] So is your opposition the removal of the PSP version?  Sounds like we need an alignment on “release” recipe names.


I don’t have a problem with adding the machine name to the recipe especially if COMPATIBLE_MACHINE is set for only one machine.

Also changing the ti33x PREFERRED_PROVIDER to a kernel that is still being developed (not released) is another problem.

Ex:

ti33x: switch default preference to ti-staging tree

PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-ti-staging"



[CEM] As Denys pointed out the arago.conf sets this to the old recipe for now while using an Arago distribution.  Making the default point to the kernel being developed makes it easy for people to work with that kernel and provide feedback.  Is you issue that they may not set their build to use the older kernel (i.e. not using Arago distro) and encounter issues?


Regards,
Franklin Cooper Jr.
Texas Instruments
Application Engineer
fcooper at ti.com<mailto:fcooper at ti.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/attachments/20130319/e58fd01f/attachment.html>