[linux-yocto] LTSI for 3.10 - Standard Practice

Hart, Darren darren.hart at intel.com
Tue Feb 11 16:26:39 PST 2014

On 2/11/14, 16:11, "Bruce Ashfield" <bruce.ashfield at windriver.com> wrote:

>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
>>> 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
>> 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.

There are two things happening here.

1) The PCH_GBE and PCH_UART changes. Those were in standard/base and would
have conflicted with LTSI.

2) The non-upstream minnow-io (drivers/platform/x86/minnow*) drivers.
These are only in minnow-io, still.

$ git rev-parse standard/ltsi

$ git rev-parse HEAD

$ ls drivers/platform/x86/minnow*
ls: cannot access drivers/platform/x86/minnow*: No such file or directory

$ git rev-parse meta

$ git rev-parse HEAD

# Sorry about this... Ugly :-)
$ grep drivers/platform/x86/minnowboard
meta/cfg/kernel-cache/features/minnow-io/*patch | cut -f2 -d ' ' | grep
minnow | grep -ve "^b" | sort | uniq

So as far as I can tell, the minnow-io patches only exist in the minnow-io
feature and have not been applied to standard/ltsi.

Am I missing something?


>>>> 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
>>>> to
>>>> specify standard/ltsi? Or is that just a staging branch, and
>>>> 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
>>> integration, and where I'll merge any updates to it.
>> Ack, thanks.

Darren Hart
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
Intel Open Source Technology Center

More information about the linux-yocto mailing list