[linux-yocto] LTSI for 3.10 - Standard Practice

Bruce Ashfield bruce.ashfield at windriver.com
Tue Feb 11 16:11:11 PST 2014

On 2/11/2014, 7:06 PM, Hart, Darren wrote:
> On 2/11/14, 16:04, "Bruce Ashfield" <bruce.ashfield at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Hart, Darren <darren.hart at intel.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Bruce,
>>> While looking to update the MinnowBoard dora BSP I noticed that the
>>> minnow
>>> platform drivers Greg added to LTSI were not in standard/ltsi. Did you
>>> drop those in favor of the minnow-io feature?
>> standard/ltsi is applied on top of the standard branch contents, and since
>> we already had the minnow io features in there, I checked the patches
>> and went with the ones already in the standard branch.
> Ah, but I'm talking about minnow-io, which is not in the standard branch,
> it exists only in features/minnow-io (and greg's LTSI, but not
> standard/ltsi).

Look again. When I merged LTSI, I had a 1:1 conflict with
patches already applied. So you may think that features/minnow-io
wasn't applied .. but it was.


>>> I see the standard/base and standard/ltsi branches are at the same
>>> commit
>>> ID. What is the expected usage here? If you want LTSI, are you expected
>>> to
>>> specify standard/ltsi? Or is that just a staging branch, and everything
>>> can be assumed to have the contents of LTSI? (The latter was my
>>> expectation, but I wanted to be sure).
>> All branches have LTSI contained with them, so you can use any branch
>> in the tree and be assured that you have LTSI + anything extra on the
>> branch, but definitely an exact superset of LTSI.
>> So yep, you have it right, standard/ltsi is just where I staged the LTSI
>> integration, and where I'll merge any updates to it.
> Ack, thanks.

More information about the linux-yocto mailing list