On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:30:04PM -0500, Jon Mason wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 5:16 PM Denys Dmytriyenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 04:10:33PM -0600, Joshua Watt wrote: > > > > > > On 1/23/20 4:05 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > >On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 04:43:23PM -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > > > >>On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:00 PM Denys Dmytriyenko <[email protected]> > > > >>wrote: > > > >>>From: Denys Dmytriyenko <[email protected]> > > > >>> > > > >>>Many BSPs require ARM Trusted Firmware (also known as Trusted > > > >>>Firmware-A). > > > >>>To avoid duplicating efforts of adding very similar recipes to BSP > > > >>>layers, > > > >>>add an upstream reference implementation to openembedded-core, which > > > >>>can be > > > >>>customized by BSPs, if needed. > > > >>Isn't this one of the things that Jon Mason is trying to > > > >>standardize/support in meta-arm ? > > > >> > > > >>http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-arm/tree/meta-arm/recipes-bsp/trusted-firmware-a > > > >Ah, interesting, somehow I totally missed that one! :) > > > > > > > >What triggered this submission is that we have our own variant in > > > >meta-ti and > > > >Joshua Watt was adding a very similar one to meta-rockchip: > > > >https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/topic/70054501#48116 > > > > > > FWIW, variants of this recipe crop up in pretty much every ARM-based > > > BSP layer (e.g. > > > https://github.com/alistair23/meta-pine64/blob/master/recipes-bsp/arm-trusted-firmware/arm-trusted-firmware_2.1.bb); > > > it seems common enough that a base recipe that each BSP layer can > > > bbappend to suite their needs seems like it would be useful? > > > > Yes, indeed, hence we agreed to submit it to oe-core... > > > > And meta-arm sounds like a good idea and can be used by all those ARM-based > > BSPs as a base, but for some reason I cannot find any announcements for that > > new layer... Jon? > > Sorry, I was unaware that it was common practice to announce this kind > of thing. Also, it was very barebones for the first few weeks. In > fact, I still think it is minimal. That being said, I'll send email > to OE-devel (and/or OE-Core) announcing it properly.
If you want it to be a base for other ARM-based BSP layers, it should be very well known, well maintained and Yocto-compliant. I see there are multiple sub-layers in meta-arm and there was a recent discussion how to properly separate things in those sub-layers - BSP, Distro and Apps w/o mixing them. For example, our meta-ti BSP layer has no other dependency besides OE-Core, making it very clean. In order for me to make meta-ti also depend on meta-arm for ATF, OPTEE, etc., I would like it to be up to the quality standards of OE-Core! So, the bar is quite high, but I'm willing to help and work in that direction with you and others. -- Denys > Thanks, > Jon > > > > > > -- > > Denys > > > > > > > >>What's the delta between the two ? > > > >Hmm, that one uses older 2.1 version. Other than that, I'll need to test > > > >to > > > >see if it's as adaptable and expandable as our more simplistic > > > >variants... > > > > > > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > > Openembedded-core mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
