[linux-yocto] [PATCH v2 0/4] Cleanup eg20t, 8250, add intel-common BSPs

[Darren Hart]

On 2/10/14, 21:45, "Bruce Ashfield" <bruce.ashfield at windriver.com> wrote:

>On 2/11/2014, 12:24 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>> On 2/10/14, 21:23, "Bruce Ashfield" <bruce.ashfield at windriver.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/10/2014, 11:59 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>> On 2/10/14, 16:21, "Bruce Ashfield" <bruce.ashfield at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart at linux.intel.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/6/14, 17:18, "Darren Hart" <dvhart at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This series does some fragment cleanup and adds the two new common
>>>>>>> BSPs
>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>> meta-intel layer: intel-core2-32 and intel-corei7-64. These BSPs
>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>> include all the corresponding ARCH (32 or 64) BSP descriptions as
>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> common-pc to build two kernels capable of supporting all these
>>>>>>> machines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v2:
>>>>>>> - Generic to specific ordering in scc files
>>>>>>> - Use driver fragments from common-pc*, not the entire scc
>>>>>>> - Update both machines to use CONFIG_MCORE2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Bruce, any pending concerns on this series?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. I just didn't want to merge it yet, since I have three other
>>>>> pending updates
>>>>> to the 3.10 kernel that I was waiting on in the meantime. LTSI being
>>>>> the
>>>>> biggest that I want to see merged before piling more on top.
>>>>
>>>> This is for -dev first and can go into 3.10 after the LTSI update.
>>>>Could
>>>> it go into -dev now? I've got some meta-intel stuff that's queued up
>>>> behind this and people clawing at me for it :-)
>>>
>>> Ack'd. I can do that, I like to keep them in sync, but I'm willing to
>>> bend that rule to keep things moving. I'll have this merged during
>>> the day tomorrow.
>>
>>
>> Thank you kindly.
>
>On that same note, I went ahead and merged this to -dev, it is now in
>the linux-yocto-dev repository.
>
>I had a reject for 3.10 on the first patch of the series (we've already
>done some eg20t work). It wasn't hard to resolve, but can you confirm
>that you do want this on 3.10 as well as -dev, before I got ahead and
>push that change.
>
>Bruce

As you have expressed an interest in keeping them in sync, please resolve
the conflict with minnow.scc by adding the eg20t include line. This won't
hurt anything as any differences between eg20t.cfg and minnow.cfg will
defer to minnow.cfg as it comes later.

As I update minnow, we can remove the redundancy later.

--
Darren