On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 12:53 -0800, Darren Hart wrote: > I'm working on adding support for a specific SoC (Bay Trail specifically). > I have a few things that it incorporates, Designware I2C, SPI, I2S/Sound, > it needs LPSS, some PWM bits, the i915 driver, etc. > > The i915 is separated out already, the others, not so much. I'm struggling > with where to put them and would appreciate your thoughts. > > I could add Designware configs to a general fragment for each of I2C and > SPI. Same for the UART. I looked at the sound fragment, but it says it's > for OSS ?!?! And doesn't include things like INTEL HDA, so it's not > particularly useful. > > I considered adding a cfg/SoC directory, but that might as well be in BSP > and I was trying to make it more reusable. > > And that's the final option, I could create a BSP that targets just this > SoC and include that in the more generic intel-core* BSPs. My concern with > this is the amount of redundancy that is likely to proliferate over time. > > The current set of cfg and features is already fairly difficult to > navigate. > > And on that, my second topic. > > As I understand it, the accepted best practice is to put cfg-only > fragments under cfg while things requiring patches should go under > features.... We've been lax if that's the case and we have a fair amount > of cleanup to do. >
If that's the case then cfg will get very crowded, since most of the stuff in features is cfg-only. For that matter, since we're examining things afresh, why have patches in features at all - why not just put all the code (patches) in the machine branches? In that case, we only have one location, cfg/ (or features/, whichever)... > The organization has deteriorated over time as well. I'm wondering if we > should have a meta-cleanup-week where we all take a block and reorg it and > the impacted BSPs to some agreed upon standard in time for the > linux-yocto-dev conversion to a named release. Specifically I'm wondering > if we should create a hierarchy in cfg that parallels the Kconfig > hierarchy. Drivers/net/ethernet, for example. We could cap it at 2 layers > to keep it from getting overly granular. This seems to me that it would > provide some direction as to how to create fragments as well as make them > easier to find and reuse. > > Thoughts? > A cleanup would definitely be in order - I've noticed while providing fragments for tracing and profiling for another project that there's a lot of overlap and even missing bits where there should be something. To be expected having grown organically, but we can probably do better now with hindsight.. Tom _______________________________________________ linux-yocto mailing list linux-yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/linux-yocto
