[OE-core] [PATCH] barebox: Add recipe

[David Vincent]

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 at linuxfoundation.org>:
> 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 at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  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
>