[meta-ti] [PATCH] boot-monitor: add K2L and K2E boot monitor build support

[Maupin, Chase]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dmytriyenko, Denys
>Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 11:33 AM
>To: Zhang, Hao
>Cc: Maupin, Chase; Shilimkar, Santosh; Rini, Tom; meta-
>ti at yoctoproject.org
>Subject: Re: [meta-ti] [PATCH] boot-monitor: add K2L and K2E boot
>monitor build support
>
>On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:26:13PM -0400, Hao Zhang wrote:
>> On 5/15/2014 12:22 PM, Maupin, Chase wrote:
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Shilimkar, Santosh
>> >> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 11:14 AM
>> >> To: Dmytriyenko, Denys
>> >> Cc: Maupin, Chase; Zhang, Hao; Rini, Tom; meta-
>ti at yoctoproject.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [meta-ti] [PATCH] boot-monitor: add K2L and K2E
>boot
>> >> monitor build support
>> >>
>> >> On Thursday 15 May 2014 12:11 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:06:15PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>> On Thursday 15 May 2014 11:56 AM, Maupin, Chase wrote:
>> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>>>> From: Shilimkar, Santosh
>> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 10:39 AM
>> >>>>>> To: Zhang, Hao; Dmytriyenko, Denys
>> >>>>>> Cc: Maupin, Chase; Rini, Tom; meta-ti at yoctoproject.org
>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [meta-ti] [PATCH] boot-monitor: add K2L and
>K2E
>> >> boot
>> >>>>>> monitor build support
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Thursday 15 May 2014 11:07 AM, Hao Zhang wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On 5/15/2014 10:54 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:41:52AM -0400, Hao Zhang
>wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> [..]
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Can you clarify if you really want all 3 devices
>> >> installed
>> >>>>>> all the time or
>> >>>>>>>>>> do you really want a recipe that installs the boot
>> >> monitor
>> >>>>>> per device?  I
>> >>>>>>>>>> know you don't currently have 3 machine types so
>maybe
>> >> that
>> >>>>>> is what is
>> >>>>>>>>>> feeding your issue here, but my question is whether
>you
>> >> need
>> >>>>>> to have
>> >>>>>>>>>> separate builds per device.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I want all the 3 boot monitors built and installed all
>the
>> >>>>>> time in one
>> >>>>>>>>> recipe, since MCSDK 3.1 supports all the 3 Keystone II
>> >> devices
>> >>>>>> in the
>> >>>>>>>>> same release package. This applies to the U-boot (3 U-
>boot
>> >>>>>> build for all
>> >>>>>>>>> the 3 Keystone II devices) and Linux kernel DTB.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Linux kernel has support for board variations through
>DTBs,
>> >>>>>> obviously.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> As of U-boot, in Sitara world we had to manage board
>> >> variations
>> >>>>>> by detecting
>> >>>>>>>> the board at runtime. So, the same single binary would
>work
>> >> on
>> >>>>>> AM335x-EVM,
>> >>>>>>>> AM335x-SK, BeagleBone White and BeagleBone Black.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I would recommend you working with Tom Rini and doing
>it
>> >>>>>> similarly, so you
>> >>>>>>>> don't have to build 3 different binaries for 3 slightly
>> >>>>>> different Keystone
>> >>>>>>>> baords...
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Three boars for same SOC is different than 3 different
>SOCs
>> >> with
>> >>>>>> their
>> >>>>>> own boards. We need to support different u-boot configs
>for
>> >> that.
>> >>>>>> And
>> >>>>>> upstream of the patches work is already in progress with
>Tom
>> >>>>>> reviewing
>> >>>>>> the patches.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So which one is it?  Is this a case of three boards for a
>> >> single SoC or 3 SoCs with their own boards?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> I was just saying you AM example was multiple board for 1
>SOC.
>> >> What Hao is talking
>> >>>> '3 SOCs with their own boards.
>> >>>
>> >>> If those are 3 different SOCs (not just spins or diff part
>#s),
>> >> then we should
>> >>> consider creating 3 different OE machine configs.
>> >>>
>> >> yes they are 3 different SOCs with different capabilities
>> >
>> > Then Denys is right.  We should have 3 different OE machine
>configs which all share an SOC_FAMILY of "keystone".  That way
>they can re-use as much as possible, but unique differences such
>as the bootloader, example apps, etc can be easily handled.
>> >
>>
>> Can you show me an example how to do that?
>
>meta-ti layer, conf/machine for machine configs and
>conf/machine/include for
>SOC configs.
>
>examples would be:
>
>- am335x-evm.conf and beaglebone.conf both use ti33x.inc SOC
>definition
>- dra7xx-evm.conf and omap5-evm.conf both use omap-a15.inc SOC

Denys,

Is there something outstanding here?  Does this patch need to be revamped now that we have individual machine types?

>
>--
>Denys