On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 00:43 +0100, Burton, Ross wrote: > On 19 September 2013 00:31, Darren Hart <dvh...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 23:23 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: > >> Most BSPs appear to be derived from what appears to be a stale copy of the > >> atom-pc xorg.conf which was either repeating defaults (the screen > >> configuration), pointlessly hard-coding (specifying video driver when X can > >> auto-probe), or actively harmful (disabling hotplugged input devices). > >> Delete > >> the files which can be removed, and remove the bad hotplug disabling > >> options > >> from the others. > > > > This has been something I've wanted to see improved for a long time. > > Typically we do changes like with one patch per BSP to help keep things > > a bit more flexible in the face of regressions. > > I started doing that but then got rapidly bored with copy-paste... I > can split it up though. > > > Which of these BSPs did you test and verify work after this patch? > > Two classes of patches: delete the file and trim the file. > > Where xorg.conf was deleted the only hardware I can (and did) test it > on was NUC. I guess a representative sample of vesa and mga hardware > should be verified to still boot. >
I pulled in the nuc changes, but will wait for the individual BSP owners to ack the changes for their BSPs before pulling in the others. > One instance of the trim patch was tested by Saul on his Minnow (whose > report of a broken touchscreen prompted this series) and oe-core has > had the same change for atom-pc/genericx86 for some time now. > And of course Darren will need to pull in the minnow changes. Thanks, Tom > Ross > _______________________________________________ > meta-intel mailing list > meta-intel@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-intel _______________________________________________ meta-intel mailing list meta-intel@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-intel