[linux-yocto] [PATCH v2 0/4][3.10][meta] MinnowBoard and Wifi updates

[Darren Hart]

On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 10:52 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 13-11-13 10:41 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 10:23 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> >> On 13-11-13 01:59 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 23:18 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> >>>> On 11/12/2013, 4:27 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 15:59 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> >>>>>> On 13-11-11 06:25 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> >>>>>>> The following changes since commit f1c9080cd27f99700fa59b5375d1ddd0afe625ad:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>       meta/common-pc: add missing dependencies for BRCMSMAC (2013-11-03 23:01:35 -0500)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> are available in the git repository at:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>       git://git.yoctoproject.org/linux-yocto-contrib dvhart/3.10/meta
> >>>>>>>       http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/linux-yocto-contrib/log/?h=dvhart/3.10/meta
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Darren Hart (4):
> >>>>>>>       minnow: Remove eg20t
> >>>>>>>       minnow-io: Add feature for MinnowBoard GPIO keys and LEDs
> >>>>>>>       minnow: Remove old patches for Ethernet and GPIO
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To confirm. We still want standard/minnow to contain these changes ?
> >>>>>> That's what the meta data tells me, but I wanted to be sure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, the new BSP will use standard/base. There is no real need to have a
> >>>>> standard/minnow branch as far as I can see.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's what I was wondering and thinking as well. When I was merging the
> >>>> changes I noticed the minnow-standard.scc still had a branch statement.
> >>>> Did you want to quickly roll that removal into this series while you
> >>>> are updating the meta data ?
> >>>
> >>> I hadn't thought of this. I thought the purpose of the branch statement
> >>> in the minnow BSP scc was to provide a starting point to add anything
> >>> the kernel BSP or the recipe BSP added to the kernel sources -
> >>> independent of whether or not the standard/branch actually existed.
> >>
> >> The branch will be created when the statement is processed. If anything
> >> happens after the statement, the changes go on that branch.
> >>
> >> So by just having it there, you are creating a placeholder branch.
> >>
> >> It is trivial to create the branch later if there really is custom
> >> content. So if you don't want to have it sitting there, then drop
> >> the branch statement for now.
> >>
> >> There are definitely two schools of thought on this. Those that want
> >> to just build from a common branch, and those that follow the
> >> 'branches are simple and cheap' and they document what boards are
> >> supported .. so use them and be happy.
> >>
> >> The tools support both, and we can do either. In different contexts
> >> I'm opinionated one way or the other :)
> >
> >
> > In that case, having fewer IA branches is more in keeping with the
> > Intel's goals for BSP management. Single-Image, single sources, no
> > vendor trees. I'll respin the series, dropping the branch in the minnow
> > scc files.
> >
> > Some documentation needs to be updated... I'll have to own that.
> 
> And should I expect a v3 with the removal of the branch ?
> 


Yup, that's what I meant by respinning the series above. Will get that
to you today... hopefully during the morning meeting block.


-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel