[yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support

Otavio Salvador otavio.salvador at ossystems.com.br
Wed Feb 15 05:53:41 PST 2023

Em qua., 15 de fev. de 2023 às 10:44, Alexander Kanavin
<alex.kanavin at gmail.com> escreveu:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 12:22, Otavio Salvador
> <otavio.salvador at ossystems.com.br> 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

More information about the barebox mailing list