On 2/11/14, 16:11, "Bruce Ashfield" <bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com> wrote:
>On 2/11/2014, 7:06 PM, Hart, Darren wrote: >> On 2/11/14, 16:04, "Bruce Ashfield" <bruce.ashfi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Hart, Darren <darren.h...@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. 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 e9cdab78bed262dbeadc7f403989f20972bcddde $ git rev-parse HEAD e9cdab78bed262dbeadc7f403989f20972bcddde $ ls drivers/platform/x86/minnow* ls: cannot access drivers/platform/x86/minnow*: No such file or directory $ git rev-parse meta 7fc16a9dc80bfdb8ebde9ba0f153e70e0c1f5f44 $ git rev-parse HEAD 7fc16a9dc80bfdb8ebde9ba0f153e70e0c1f5f44 # 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 drivers/platform/x86/minnowboard-gpio.c drivers/platform/x86/minnowboard-gpio.h drivers/platform/x86/minnowboard-keys.c drivers/platform/x86/minnowboard.c 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? -- Darren > >Bruce > >> >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >> > > -- Darren Hart Yocto Project - Linux Kernel Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ linux-yocto mailing list linux-yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/linux-yocto