Em qua., 15 de fev. de 2023 às 10:44, Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 12:22, Otavio Salvador > <otavio.salvador@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Fair enough, I'm open to the idea. It would be interesting/useful to > >> see if anyone else in the community is in favour of this or not. I'm > >> sure you appreciate why we need to ask the question and why we can't > >> just add everything! :) > >> > >> The community usage does appear to be primarily phytec/ptx. > > > > I have used barebox in some projects in the past for multiple customers. It is a solid and commonly used bootloader. I consider U-Boot the industry standard, but Barebox is also widely used, and it makes sense to be part of OE-Core. > > I do not quite understand why barebox needs to be specifically in > oe-core. There's a well maintained layer for it: > https://github.com/menschel-d/meta-barebox > so once all those meta-phytec recipes are phased out in favour of > using that layer, there's no fragmentation. I think the Barebox inside OE-Core allows a bigger integration and reuse of existing tooling for signing and other classes currently well integrated with U-Boot. For me, a critical point for decision is if Pengutronix will commit to support it. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
