Doing some sanity testing and will submit a patch to switch to 2023.04 . Dont pull this patch yet.

Ignore this series against dunfell. I used the wrong command when generating the patch. This is for kirkstone/master. -- Ryan Eatmon

We often carry more dtbs/dtbos in our kernel than we have upstreamed. The inclusion of all of the dtb/dtbo in the KERNEL_DEVICETREE has become problematic as we start testing the linux-next and 6.1 as

We are preparing to migrate our kernel version to 6.1. As we are still working on the migration, mark the default preference low for this version. We will enable building with this kernel in a

We are preparing to migrate our u-boot version to 2023.01. As we are still working on the migration, mark the default preference low for this version. We will enable building with this u-boot in a

We are preparing for LTS migration to the 6.1 kernel and 2023.01 u-boot versions. This series creates the recipes for them as well doing a little cleanup of how we handle specifying the DTB/DTBO

We are preparing to migrate our kernel version to 6.1. As we are still working on the migration, mark the default preference low for this version. We will enable building with this kernel in a

We are preparing to migrate our u-boot version to 2023.01. As we are still working on the migration, mark the default preference low for this version. We will enable building with this u-boot in a

We often carry more dtbs/dtbos in our kernel than we have upstreamed. The inclusion of all of the dtb/dtbo in the KERNEL_DEVICETREE has become problematic as we start testing the linux-next and 6.1 as

We are preparing for LTS migration to the 6.1 kernel and 2023.01 u-boot versions. This series creates the recipes for them as well doing a little cleanup of how we handle specifying the DTB/DTBO

NAK. Since dunfell is stable and we are closing it out, we are not changing any of the machine names. We are only doing that in kirkstone. So removing am65xx-hs-evm (HS-FS) is a no go. You can add

Thank you for taking care of this. And don't worry about Fixes: tag - meta-ti doesn't have a strict policy for it. I haven't tested it yet, but so far looks good to me: Acked-by: Denys Dmytriyenko

This would be a major change globally across the layer in dunfell, akin to a new feature. It would require re-testing everything all over again. Also, it would provide very little benefit, since

It simply won't apply to kirkstone at all - this looks like dunfell-specific patch and kirkstone was mentioned by mistake.

Hi, This patch uses the old bitbake syntax so they won't work on kikstone. Jose Paresh Bhagat via lists.yoctoproject.org <p-bhagat=ti.com@...> escreveu no dia terça, 21/03/2023 à(s) 11:08: -- Best

Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@...> escreveu no dia terça, 21/03/2023 à(s) 19:11: The dunfell branch supports the new bitbake syntax as well so another solution to lower the divergence can be mitigating

Ah, nice catch! I guess I've had too many rebases... :) Thanks for very careful reviewing! The issue is that kirkstone and master have diverged from dunfell too much now and porting changes became

Fixing some syntax issues from the last dunfell to kirkstone sync up patch series. Signed-off-by: Ryan Eatmon <reatmon@...> --- meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/ti-sci-fw/ti-sci-fw_git.bb | 4 ++-- 1 file

Hey all - after the conversation in (https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/topic/97653905#15992) regarding mesa, kirkstone + ti-sgx-ddk-um, I ported my yocto project to the dunfell branches of my

Ooops. We missed a dunfell to kirkstone syntax change. No need to send an updated patch, I will just do a git fixup and address it. Thanks for your hard work on these patch sync ups, Denys. It is