On 7/1/15, 5:36 PM, "Saul Wold" <s...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>On 07/01/2015 05:28 PM, Darren Hart wrote: >> >> >> On 7/1/15 4:35 PM, Saul Wold wrote: >>> Add the new intel-quark bsp type using the refactored x86_base and >>> Intel Vendor enablers. Create a new soc for the x1000 SOC package. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Saul Wold <s...@linux.intel.com> >>> --- >>> >>> v2: Updated for additional refactor related changes >>> - use pci.scc >>> - added serial.scc >> >> Seems to me serial would be better added to intel-quark-standard, rather >> than the intel-common/intel-quark which is more about the SoC than the >> board. Stands to reason people may want the SoC enabling fragments >> without a load of extra drivers that are not necessary to use the SoC >> (like USB Serial drivers). >> >> I have assumed this are to plug in USB to serial adapters to the board - >> and are not somehow integrated on the board. Is that not a correct >> assumption? >> >Yes, plugin, I can move them, I guess I was trying to follow the core* >standard a bit differently then you intended and that the >features/soc/x1000 was the SOC side and intel-quark was more the general >guark/x1000 based devices using x1000. I worded that poorly. "Intel-quark is more about the board itself and not how it's used." While standard/tiny/preempt-rt make policy decision about how it's used, including which extra drivers should be included in the build. > The -standard, -premept and >-tiny will eventually use the intel-quark, and I can see both points of >view where -tiny might not want usb-serial, or might want a very >specific one for tethering something else. > >I will let this soak until next week and we can revisit it. > > >Sau! > > -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center -- _______________________________________________ linux-yocto mailing list linux-yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/linux-yocto
