Sorry, the patch alone was maybe a little harsh, I should have submitted it as a RFC. For me, this recipe was needed because I don't use u-boot as the bootloader for my custom board but barebox. More generically, I know that the meta-fsl-arm has also a recipe for barebox and since my board was not based on a Freescale MPU but an Atmel one, I thought that the work could be shared by the two layers in oe-core or, at least, in meta-oe instead of being also redeveloped in meta-atmel or another BSP layer. Since barebox also supports many architectures like ARM, MIPS, Blackfin,... and many vendors like Atmel, Freescale, TI,... I think it provides a good alternative for the 'virtual/bootloader' task. People who want to use it should not put more effort than what they need to do for u-boot currently. I've cc'ed the barebox mailing list for more technical details if needed. Greetings, David 2014-07-28 12:23 GMT+02:00 Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 11:55 +0200, David Vincent wrote: >> barebox (formerly known as u-boot-v2) is a bootloader that inherits the >> best of U-Boot and the Linux kernel. This commit adds the possibility to >> use it as a virtual/bootloader instead of U-Boot. >> >> Signed-off-by: David Vincent <freesilicon@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox.inc | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox_2014.07.0.bb | 15 +++++ >> 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox.inc >> create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox_2014.07.0.bb > > I have to admit I don't know a lot about this. To make it into OE-Core > we need some kind of story about why its necessary and commonly used. > Are there a number of BSPs using this? Can you give some background to > why this is needed? > > Cheers, > > Richard > _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
