[linux-yocto] LTSI for 3.10 - Standard Practice
bruce.ashfield at windriver.com
Tue Feb 11 16:32:02 PST 2014
On 2/11/2014, 7:26 PM, Hart, Darren wrote:
> 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>
>>>>> While looking to update the MinnowBoard dora BSP I noticed that the
>>>>> 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
>> 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?
Hmm. I hit a full 8 pack of conflicts and confirmed against the patches
I had available.
But thinking about that process, I was checking their existence in the
kernel-cache and may have assumed to much when I got deeper in the
conflicts .. maybe that's why I dislike unapplied patches so much ;)
Have a look at the kernel-cache, and this block of the series file:
Which ones are you seeing that are missing ? I'll double check it myself
and pull in the missing ones.
>>>>> I see the standard/base and standard/ltsi branches are at the same
>>>>> ID. What is the expected usage here? If you want LTSI, are you
>>>>> 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