[linux-yocto] [PATCH v2 0/4][3.10][meta] MinnowBoard and Wifi updates
dvhart at linux.intel.com
Tue Nov 12 22:59:54 PST 2013
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 23:18 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> 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
> >>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/linux-yocto-contrib/log/?h=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 hadn't thought of this. I thought the purpose of the branch statement
in the minnow BSP scc was to provide a starting point to add anything
the kernel BSP or the recipe BSP added to the kernel sources -
independent of whether or not the standard/branch actually existed.
I don't know what best practice is here - maybe we're establishing it
now. What would you suggest?
> > 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 plan to have the minnow layer linux-yocto bbappend add minnow-io as a
KERNEL_FEATURE. This makes it easy to leave it out (which is good as it
is an abomination of boardfiles).
> 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.
Right, I didn't even think of it. Open to suggestions.
My current thinking is that we should probably remove it from every BSP
that starts using standard/base as its KBRANCH - this removes complexity
from the BSP scc, and that is almost always a good thing in this space.
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
More information about the linux-yocto