[linux-yocto] LTSI for 3.10 - Standard Practice
darren.hart at intel.com
Tue Feb 11 16:38:07 PST 2014
On 2/11/14, 16:32, "Bruce Ashfield" <bruce.ashfield at windriver.com> wrote:
>On 2/11/2014, 7:26 PM, Hart, Darren wrote:
>> On 2/11/14, 16:11, "Bruce Ashfield" <bruce.ashfield at windriver.com>
>>> 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
>>>>>> 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
>> 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
>> $ 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
>> 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.
That would be the ones with the 000* prefix. Everything listed in
# Depends on EG20T and Tunnel Creek GPIO (LPC, SCH, etc.)
kconf hardware minnow-io.cfg
If we add these to standard/ltsi, then we just need to drop the patches
from the minnow-io fragment. Of course they will need to stay in the
fragment for linux-yocto-dev as it won't have the LTSI bits and these
patches will not go upstream as they are placeholders until there is
proper device properties support in ACPI and the drivers can be updated to
If you prefer to leave these as patches in minnow-io.scc, I'm fine with
that and will keep the BSP files consistent across versions.
I just noticed the gap and wanted to make sure it was intentional. How
would you like to handle it?
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
Intel Open Source Technology Center
More information about the linux-yocto