Hi Richard, Am Freitag, dem 03.02.2023 um 14:17 +0000 schrieb Richard Purdie: > On Fri, 2023-02-03 at 14:50 +0100, Marco Felsch wrote: > > This adds the support for the barebox bootloader to oe-core. The recipe > > is based on the recipe found in meta-ptx [1] with a few minor adaptions. > > > > This basic support includes the bootloader and the target tools to > > interact with the bootloader. The host tools support is not part of > > this commit. This will be added later on as separate recipe. > > > > [1] https://github.com/pengutronix/meta-ptx/tree/master/recipes-bsp/barebox > > > > Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > meta/conf/documentation.conf | 7 + > > meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox.inc | 123 ++++++++++++++++++ > > meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox_2023.01.0.bb | 5 + > > ...IMAGE_COMPRESSION-per-default-to-lz4.patch | 40 ++++++ > > 4 files changed, 175 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox.inc > > create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox_2023.01.0.bb > > create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/files/0001-pbl-set-IMAGE_COMPRESSION-per-default- > > to-lz4.patch > > In order to add something to OE-Core, we need to see it being used by a > reasonable portion of the ecosystem. Is there enough usage of barebox > on common boards that justifies this? I understand that not each and every package can and should be added to OE-core, so let me provide my view on why adding barebox could be reasonable. First of all, since it is a bootloader and oe-core's purpose is to provide basic common recipes required to bring up a device, I found it to be a proper location for the recipe. It does not add any further dependencies in the oe-core ecosystem so additional maintenance should be limited in scope. With over 300 individual contributors and regular monthly releases [1] I would call the barebox bootloader a common, stable and mature project that is around since ~2009 and provides support for a wide range of architectures, SoCs and platforms [2] including freely available common boards like RPI, beaglebone, i.MX eval kits and UEFI in general. Ever since, barebox has also been used by different hardware vendors (e.g. [4]) and was chosen by Kalray [5] as their bootloader. Of course, as you know, it is always difficult to have a reliable overview of the user base of an open source project as barebox. So far there are already a number of barebox oe recipes around [3] that I find worth to consolidate with adding one reference recipe to oe-core. The question if these are sufficient arguments for adding barebox to oe-core probably needs to be answered by the broader community, but I found it to be a good added value to have a bootloader in oe-core that adapts many of the well-known schemes of Linux and focuses on being developer-friendly and framework-driven. (Let me just drop [6] for those interested in a bit details on what I summed up very roughly here.) > I noticed there is no maintainers entry being added so this will throw > QA errors on the autobuilder. I would take responsibility for the recipe, backed by other barebox developers here. > Also, I'm not sure adding doc varflags for individual recipe variables > to documentation.conf makes sense. We should probably have them in the > recipe or just put entries into the manual? To be honest, this was inspired by the UBOOT_ variables that are placed in documentation.conf thus we assumed this could be a proper place. We can simply move them into the recipe to limit intrusion into the rest of the oe ecosystem. Many thanks for your initial thoughts! Best regards, Enrico > Cheers, > > Richard [1] https://barebox.org/download/ [2] https://barebox.org/doc/latest/boards.html [3] http://layers.openembedded.org/layerindex/branch/master/recipes/?q=barebox [4] https://www.phytec.eu/en/cdocuments/?doc=YQ4RCg [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalray [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fru1n54s2W4&ab_channel=TheLinuxFoundation -- Pengutronix e.K. | Enrico Jörns | Embedded Linux Consulting & Support | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | Phone: +49-5121-206917-180 | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9 |
