dz4list at gmail.com
Mon Oct 5 06:00:07 AEDT 2020
We have two options to pick up changes from Aspeed and upstream.
1. Be closer to Aspeed temporary:
Rebase OpenBMC u-boot changes to aspeed-master-v2019.04, with CIT ( daily
or at least weekly). After the aspeed-master-v2019.04 activity slowed down,
which means the u-boot for AST2600 from Aspeed SDK is getting stable, we
start the effort to upstream the changes.
2. Be closer to upstream:
OpenBMC takes yocto u-boot branch, submit to OpenBMC u-boot branch,
will target upstream immediately.
option-1: get changes from Aspeed is easy, but in this case we need some
important feature / patch from upstream, we need back ports.
option-2: get changes from Aspeed will need more effort than just a simple
Considering Aspeed is still developing both the AST2600 chip and SDK, I
would like to vote for option-1, as now, there will be much more changes
needed from Aspeed instead of from upstream.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Michael Richardson <mcr at sandelman.ca>
> To: Joel Stanley <joel at jms.id.au>, OpenBMC Maillist <
> openbmc at lists.ozlabs.org>, Eddie James <eajames at linux.ibm.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 14:02:29 -0400
> Subject: Re: u-boot branches
> Joel Stanley <joel at jms.id.au> wrote:
> > I've chosen to rebase the openbmc changes on top of their branch. The
> > old branch is still accessible at archive/v2019.04-aspeed-openbmc-1.
> > The bitbake recipe will continue to work as it uses the nobranch=1
> > flag, and specifies the version based on the SHA.
> > The new branch contains their aspeed-master-v2019.04 tree as of
> > with the OpenBMC changes applied on top.
> Is this any closer to upstream u-boot?
> Or is it diverging further?
> ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh
> networks [
> ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT
> architect [
> ] mcr at sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on
> rails [
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openbmc