[linux-yocto] [PATCH v2 0/4][3.10][meta] MinnowBoard and Wifi updates
bruce.ashfield at windriver.com
Tue Nov 12 20:18:21 PST 2013
On 11/12/2013, 4:27 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 15:59 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 13-11-11 06:25 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> The following changes since commit f1c9080cd27f99700fa59b5375d1ddd0afe625ad:
>>> meta/common-pc: add missing dependencies for BRCMSMAC (2013-11-03 23:01:35 -0500)
>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>> git://git.yoctoproject.org/linux-yocto-contrib dvhart/3.10/meta
>>> Darren Hart (4):
>>> minnow: Remove eg20t
>>> minnow-io: Add feature for MinnowBoard GPIO keys and LEDs
>>> minnow: Remove old patches for Ethernet and GPIO
>> To confirm. We still want standard/minnow to contain these changes ?
>> That's what the meta data tells me, but I wanted to be sure.
> No, the new BSP will use standard/base. There is no real need to have a
> standard/minnow branch as far as I can see.
That's what I was wondering and thinking as well. When I was merging the
changes I noticed the minnow-standard.scc still had a branch statement.
Did you want to quickly roll that removal into this series while you
are updating the meta data ?
> I suppose ultimately the BSP branches from standard/base and then
> applies the minnow-io feature, but that is meant to be optional at the
> BSP (recipe-space) level.
> I'd like *ALL* Intel BSPs to ultimately build from standard/base.
> So - is there any reason to have standard/minnow lying around? I've
> removed it from my test builds.
How are you working with the minnow-io feature ? I can answer the minnow-io
question and the fate of the branch with that answer :)
I ask, because I didn't see it in the series being included or merged
(or did I miss it?) from the BSP .scc files themselves.
More information about the linux-yocto