On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 09:30 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:

As you know, I've been working on several kernel efforts
around the FSL parts as well (in particular the ones that
have enough pieces upstream to work out of the box). I
definitely don't want to overlap in a way that doesn't
create complimentary efforts.

What are your current thoughts around kernels and the
(nearly religious) kernel version question ? It would be
great to get some alignment on features (-rt, tracing,
boot, footprint reduction, etc, etc) and save some effort
on maintenance and validation. Also if we want to create
some yocto reference BSPs, having a kernel version and feature
set match is important as well (i.e. what we've done for
the intel ones).

To that end, do you have an thoughts about using linux-yocto
as a base to any BSP work ? That statement doesn't do it
justice though, since when I say 'use linux-yocto as a base',
it really means that linux-yocto uses your BSPs as an
upstream/official reference and can pull support for them
into branches, and have the configuration and other tooling
get them any functionality that is being developed.

No control over BSP content, or anything like this, is being
suggested or asserted here. Just looking to all push in the
same direction (embedded features and BSPs to upstream) and
re-use the work of BSPs available in the community. If the
base is the same (and hence kernel version), then this relationship
and workflow is very simple.

... and as a bonus, if the workflow doesn't work easily, then
there's a problem with it and we can work on something that
is suitable (change tools, etc).

So just to put what Bruce says into other words, there isn't any hard
requirement to use linux-yocto but we are asking people to try it and if
it doesn't work, at least tell us why.

I understand transitions and new ways of working take time and that
meta-fsl-ppc might be enough of a step at first without the linux-yocto
complications. That is fine but please do keep it in mind.

Cheers,

Richard