linaro-infrastructure-stakeholders team mailing list archive

[Guilherme Salgado <salgado@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 23:47 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011, James Westby wrote:
> > I'm sending this proposal on behalf of Loïc, who has been drafting 
> >   https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Specs/11.05/HardwarePacksV2
> 
>  Ah thanks  :-)
> 
>  I'd like to give a status update here on things which were pending
>  discussion before work could start on the spec:
>  * igep_uboot_ini field: currently we generate a boot.ini and not a
>    boot.scr on IGEP boards; we need to confirm whether we could do
>    without; I think what might be enough would be to include an u-boot
>    defaulting to boot.scr and perhaps also a x-loader for IGEP on the
>    boot partition
>  * load_addr field: it's not clear whether we could use the same address
>    for all boards; we need to confirm with someone from KWG
>  * fdt field: I discussed this today with Grant Likely, and we agreed
>    that kernel packages would distribute kernel .dtb files for each
>    board under /lib/dtbs/`uname -r`/$board.dtb.  Grant will send an
>    email out, it will take some time to reach our binary kernels as the
>    ARM .dts sources are not in our kernel tree yet, and we need to
>    update packaging etc.
>  * I just added a kernel filename to the spec, I think I failed to readd
>    this after dropping Android/ChromeOS from scope
> 
>  So I think it's almost ready to be scheduled, some research on IGEP and
>  load_addr would be good as that would allow us to drop a couple of ugly
>  concepts, but it shouldn't block this spec as both could be handled in
>  other ways.

I've noted those on the spec so I don't forget about them.  However, one
thing that is not clear to me is whether or not we want to make a change
to no longer install u-boot and x-loader packages on the rootfs.  I know
this was suggested but I see it as something that is nice to have and
not essential.  AIUI, we'd have to either change hwpack-create to
include just the boot files instead of the packages themselves or
continue including the packages but have lmc not install them.  Given
that, I'd prefer if we left this for later rather than squeezing it in
this spec.

-- 
Guilherme Salgado <https://launchpad.net/~salgado>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part