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

[Santosh Shilimkar]

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.

Regards,
Santosh