bsp-guide: replace meta-intel with meta-xilinx as container layer

Submitted by Robert P. J. Day on May 2, 2019, 1:19 p.m. | Patch ID: 160836

Details

Message ID alpine.LFD.2.21.1905020916480.10974@localhost.localdomain
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Robert P. J. Day May 2, 2019, 1:19 p.m.
As meta-intel is no longer a container layer, use meta-xilinx as
an example instead.

Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>

---

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

diff --git a/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml b/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
index 0bb0b68ab..a53ff6bce 100644
--- a/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
+++ b/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
@@ -146,18 +146,15 @@ 

     <para>
         Some layers function as a layer to hold other BSP layers.
-        These layers are knows as
+        These layers are known as
         "<ulink url='&YOCTO_DOCS_REF_URL;#term-container-layer'>container layers</ulink>".
         An example of this type of layer is the
-        <filename>meta-intel</filename> layer.
-        This layer contains BSP layers for the Intel-core2-32
-        <trademark class='registered'>Intel</trademark> Common Core
-        (Intel-core2-32) and the Intel-corei7-64
-        <trademark class='registered'>Intel</trademark> Common Core
-        (Intel-corei7-64).
-        the <filename>meta-intel</filename> layer also contains
-        the <filename>common/</filename> directory, which contains
-        common content across those layers.
+        <filename>meta-xilinx</filename> layer.
+        This container layer contains some basic top-level information,
+        as well as three actual Xilinx-related BSP layers,
+        <filename>meta-xilinx-bsp</filename>,
+        <filename>meta-xilinx-contrib</filename>, and
+        <filename>meta-xilinx-standalone</filename>.
     </para>

     <para>

Comments

Armin Kuster May 2, 2019, 5:20 p.m.
On 5/2/19 6:19 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> As meta-intel is no longer a container layer, use meta-xilinx as
> an example instead.

I thought "meta-virtualization" was a container layer?

IMHO, a BSP should only deal with getting a MACHINE booted.

- armin
>
> Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml b/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
> index 0bb0b68ab..a53ff6bce 100644
> --- a/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
> +++ b/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
> @@ -146,18 +146,15 @@
>
>      <para>
>          Some layers function as a layer to hold other BSP layers.
> -        These layers are knows as
> +        These layers are known as
>          "<ulink url='&YOCTO_DOCS_REF_URL;#term-container-layer'>container layers</ulink>".
>          An example of this type of layer is the
> -        <filename>meta-intel</filename> layer.
> -        This layer contains BSP layers for the Intel-core2-32
> -        <trademark class='registered'>Intel</trademark> Common Core
> -        (Intel-core2-32) and the Intel-corei7-64
> -        <trademark class='registered'>Intel</trademark> Common Core
> -        (Intel-corei7-64).
> -        the <filename>meta-intel</filename> layer also contains
> -        the <filename>common/</filename> directory, which contains
> -        common content across those layers.
> +        <filename>meta-xilinx</filename> layer.
> +        This container layer contains some basic top-level information,
> +        as well as three actual Xilinx-related BSP layers,
> +        <filename>meta-xilinx-bsp</filename>,
> +        <filename>meta-xilinx-contrib</filename>, and
> +        <filename>meta-xilinx-standalone</filename>.
>      </para>
>
>      <para>
>
Scott Rifenbark May 2, 2019, 5:45 p.m.
The term "Container Layer" was put in the ref-manual by me to describe a
"meta-*" layer that had other "meta-*" layers (see
https://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.7/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#term-container-layer
and the term "Container Layer").  Maybe this was never a good term?  I
don't know.  Nobody has said anything about that term for many releases.

The problem Robert points out needs to be fixed in the BSP manual as
"meta-intel" is not longer qualifying by my definition.  I can fix that.

Is "Container Layer" ok as I have defined it?

Thanks,
Scott

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 10:21 AM akuster <akuster@mvista.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 5/2/19 6:19 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > As meta-intel is no longer a container layer, use meta-xilinx as
> > an example instead.
>
> I thought "meta-virtualization" was a container layer?
>
> IMHO, a BSP should only deal with getting a MACHINE booted.
>
> - armin
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > diff --git a/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
> b/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
> > index 0bb0b68ab..a53ff6bce 100644
> > --- a/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
> > +++ b/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
> > @@ -146,18 +146,15 @@
> >
> >      <para>
> >          Some layers function as a layer to hold other BSP layers.
> > -        These layers are knows as
> > +        These layers are known as
> >          "<ulink
> url='&YOCTO_DOCS_REF_URL;#term-container-layer'>container layers</ulink>".
> >          An example of this type of layer is the
> > -        <filename>meta-intel</filename> layer.
> > -        This layer contains BSP layers for the Intel-core2-32
> > -        <trademark class='registered'>Intel</trademark> Common Core
> > -        (Intel-core2-32) and the Intel-corei7-64
> > -        <trademark class='registered'>Intel</trademark> Common Core
> > -        (Intel-corei7-64).
> > -        the <filename>meta-intel</filename> layer also contains
> > -        the <filename>common/</filename> directory, which contains
> > -        common content across those layers.
> > +        <filename>meta-xilinx</filename> layer.
> > +        This container layer contains some basic top-level information,
> > +        as well as three actual Xilinx-related BSP layers,
> > +        <filename>meta-xilinx-bsp</filename>,
> > +        <filename>meta-xilinx-contrib</filename>, and
> > +        <filename>meta-xilinx-standalone</filename>.
> >      </para>
> >
> >      <para>
> >
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>
Armin Kuster May 2, 2019, 6:21 p.m.
On 5/2/19 10:45 AM, Scott Rifenbark wrote:
> The term "Container Layer" was put in the ref-manual by me to describe
> a "meta-*" layer that had other "meta-*" layers (see
> https://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.7/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#term-container-layer
> and the term "Container Layer").  Maybe this was never a good term?  I
> don't know.  Nobody has said anything about that term for many releases. 
>
> The problem Robert points out needs to be fixed in the BSP manual as
> "meta-intel" is not longer qualifying by my definition.  I can fix that. 
>
> Is "Container Layer" ok as I have defined it?
in those terms above, yes its fine.

thanks for clarifying.

Armin
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 10:21 AM akuster <akuster@mvista.com
> <mailto:akuster@mvista.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 5/2/19 6:19 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>     > As meta-intel is no longer a container layer, use meta-xilinx as
>     > an example instead.
>
>     I thought "meta-virtualization" was a container layer?
>
>     IMHO, a BSP should only deal with getting a MACHINE booted.
>
>     - armin
>     >
>     > Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca
>     <mailto:rpjday@crashcourse.ca>>
>     >
>     > ---
>     >
>     > diff --git a/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
>     b/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
>     > index 0bb0b68ab..a53ff6bce 100644
>     > --- a/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
>     > +++ b/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
>     > @@ -146,18 +146,15 @@
>     >
>     >      <para>
>     >          Some layers function as a layer to hold other BSP layers.
>     > -        These layers are knows as
>     > +        These layers are known as
>     >          "<ulink
>     url='&YOCTO_DOCS_REF_URL;#term-container-layer'>container
>     layers</ulink>".
>     >          An example of this type of layer is the
>     > -        <filename>meta-intel</filename> layer.
>     > -        This layer contains BSP layers for the Intel-core2-32
>     > -        <trademark class='registered'>Intel</trademark> Common Core
>     > -        (Intel-core2-32) and the Intel-corei7-64
>     > -        <trademark class='registered'>Intel</trademark> Common Core
>     > -        (Intel-corei7-64).
>     > -        the <filename>meta-intel</filename> layer also contains
>     > -        the <filename>common/</filename> directory, which contains
>     > -        common content across those layers.
>     > +        <filename>meta-xilinx</filename> layer.
>     > +        This container layer contains some basic top-level
>     information,
>     > +        as well as three actual Xilinx-related BSP layers,
>     > +        <filename>meta-xilinx-bsp</filename>,
>     > +        <filename>meta-xilinx-contrib</filename>, and
>     > +        <filename>meta-xilinx-standalone</filename>.
>     >      </para>
>     >
>     >      <para>
>     >
>
>     -- 
>     _______________________________________________
>     yocto mailing list
>     yocto@yoctoproject.org <mailto:yocto@yoctoproject.org>
>     https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>
Scott Rifenbark May 2, 2019, 7:25 p.m.
Great, thanks!

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:21 AM akuster <akuster@mvista.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 5/2/19 10:45 AM, Scott Rifenbark wrote:
>
> The term "Container Layer" was put in the ref-manual by me to describe a
> "meta-*" layer that had other "meta-*" layers (see
> https://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.7/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#term-container-layer
> and the term "Container Layer").  Maybe this was never a good term?  I
> don't know.  Nobody has said anything about that term for many releases.
>
> The problem Robert points out needs to be fixed in the BSP manual as
> "meta-intel" is not longer qualifying by my definition.  I can fix that.
>
> Is "Container Layer" ok as I have defined it?
>
> in those terms above, yes its fine.
>
> thanks for clarifying.
>
> Armin
>
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 10:21 AM akuster <akuster@mvista.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 5/2/19 6:19 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> > As meta-intel is no longer a container layer, use meta-xilinx as
>> > an example instead.
>>
>> I thought "meta-virtualization" was a container layer?
>>
>> IMHO, a BSP should only deal with getting a MACHINE booted.
>>
>> - armin
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
>> >
>> > ---
>> >
>> > diff --git a/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
>> b/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
>> > index 0bb0b68ab..a53ff6bce 100644
>> > --- a/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
>> > +++ b/documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml
>> > @@ -146,18 +146,15 @@
>> >
>> >      <para>
>> >          Some layers function as a layer to hold other BSP layers.
>> > -        These layers are knows as
>> > +        These layers are known as
>> >          "<ulink
>> url='&YOCTO_DOCS_REF_URL;#term-container-layer'>container layers</ulink>".
>> >          An example of this type of layer is the
>> > -        <filename>meta-intel</filename> layer.
>> > -        This layer contains BSP layers for the Intel-core2-32
>> > -        <trademark class='registered'>Intel</trademark> Common Core
>> > -        (Intel-core2-32) and the Intel-corei7-64
>> > -        <trademark class='registered'>Intel</trademark> Common Core
>> > -        (Intel-corei7-64).
>> > -        the <filename>meta-intel</filename> layer also contains
>> > -        the <filename>common/</filename> directory, which contains
>> > -        common content across those layers.
>> > +        <filename>meta-xilinx</filename> layer.
>> > +        This container layer contains some basic top-level information,
>> > +        as well as three actual Xilinx-related BSP layers,
>> > +        <filename>meta-xilinx-bsp</filename>,
>> > +        <filename>meta-xilinx-contrib</filename>, and
>> > +        <filename>meta-xilinx-standalone</filename>.
>> >      </para>
>> >
>> >      <para>
>> >
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> yocto mailing list
>> yocto@yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>>
>
>
Robert P. J. Day May 2, 2019, 7:53 p.m.
much snipping ...

On Thu, 2 May 2019, Scott Rifenbark wrote:

> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 10:21 AM akuster <akuster@mvista.com> wrote:
>
>
>       On 5/2/19 6:19 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>       > As meta-intel is no longer a container layer, use meta-xilinx as
>       > an example instead.
>
>       I thought "meta-virtualization" was a container layer?

  uh, i'm looking at meta-virtualization right now:

https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-virtualization/tree/

and that looks like a regular BSP layer, not a container layer. am i
misunderstanding some fundamental point here?

rday
Robert P. J. Day May 2, 2019, 8:01 p.m.
On Thu, 2 May 2019, Scott Rifenbark wrote:

> Great, thanks!
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:21 AM akuster <akuster@mvista.com> wrote:
>
>       On 5/2/19 6:19 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>       > As meta-intel is no longer a container layer, use meta-xilinx as
>       > an example instead.
>
>       I thought "meta-virtualization" was a container layer?

  as a followup, i would think that "meta-openembedded" is the
canonical example of a container layer, no?

rday
Robert P. J. Day May 3, 2019, 10:54 a.m.
On Thu, 2 May 2019, Scott Rifenbark wrote:

> Great, thanks!
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:21 AM akuster <akuster@mvista.com> wrote:
>
>
>       On 5/2/19 10:45 AM, Scott Rifenbark wrote:
>       The term "Container Layer" was put in the ref-manual by me to describe a
>       "meta-*" layer that had other "meta-*" layers (see
>       https://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.7/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#term-container-layer
>       and the term "Container Layer").  Maybe this was never a good term?  I don't
>       know.  Nobody has said anything about that term for many releases. 
>
> The problem Robert points out needs to be fixed in the BSP manual as "meta-intel" is
> not longer qualifying by my definition.  I can fix that. 
>
> Is "Container Layer" ok as I have defined it?
>
> in those terms above, yes its fine.

  the more i think about it, the more i'm nervous about the phrase
"container layer", as it suggests a "layer" of some kind in the
context of OE. the one distinction i think worth making is that a "BSP
layer" is a layer expressly designed to support identified target
systems (eg., meta-xilinx-bsp), while a non-BSP layer simply packages
functionality (recipes, classes) -- a good example is
meta-virtualization.

  in either case, the trivial property of an OE layer is something
that can be specified in a bblayers.conf file. so i'm not sure *how*
you would describe, for example, meta-openembedded.

  i'm sure i'm overthinking this.

rday
Andrea Galbusera May 3, 2019, 1:52 p.m.
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 12:56 PM Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 May 2019, Scott Rifenbark wrote:
>
> > Great, thanks!
> >
> > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:21 AM akuster <akuster@mvista.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >       On 5/2/19 10:45 AM, Scott Rifenbark wrote:
> >       The term "Container Layer" was put in the ref-manual by me to describe a
> >       "meta-*" layer that had other "meta-*" layers (see
> >       https://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.7/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#term-container-layer
> >       and the term "Container Layer").  Maybe this was never a good term?  I don't
> >       know.  Nobody has said anything about that term for many releases.
> >
> > The problem Robert points out needs to be fixed in the BSP manual as "meta-intel" is
> > not longer qualifying by my definition.  I can fix that.
> >
> > Is "Container Layer" ok as I have defined it?
> >
> > in those terms above, yes its fine.
>
>   the more i think about it, the more i'm nervous about the phrase
> "container layer", as it suggests a "layer" of some kind in the
> context of OE. the one distinction i think worth making is that a "BSP
> layer" is a layer expressly designed to support identified target
> systems (eg., meta-xilinx-bsp), while a non-BSP layer simply packages
> functionality (recipes, classes) -- a good example is
> meta-virtualization.
>
>   in either case, the trivial property of an OE layer is something
> that can be specified in a bblayers.conf file. so i'm not sure *how*
> you would describe, for example, meta-openembedded.

Maybe just as a "metadata collection repo"? IMHO from a OE
perspective, a "layer" is a metadata set which provides its own
layer.conf file (which, as you say, means you can add it to your
project's bblayers.conf). Bundling more than one layer within the same
git repository (or whatever archive format use to distribute them)
does not qualify this metadata collection as anything otherwise
meaningful for bitbake. That said, meta-openembedded is definitely the
most evident example of such a "concept". I agree the term "container
layer" can be either confused with a OE layer, which technically is
not, or something having to do with containers (as I suspect from
Armin's reply), which is completely unrelated to. Maybe rewording a
little bit the manual here could reduce potential confusion to new
users. Moreover whatever term we choose to explain this concept, we
should make clear that it is orthogonal to any other layer
classification by content (i.e. BSP, distro, ...).

>   i'm sure i'm overthinking this.
>
> rday
>
> --
>
> ========================================================================
> Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
>                          http://crashcourse.ca
>
> Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
> LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
> ========================================================================--
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto