[linux-yocto] LTSI for 3.10 - Standard Practice

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 2/11/2014, 7:26 PM, Hart, Darren wrote:
> On 2/11/14, 16:11, "Bruce Ashfield" <bruce.ashfield at windriver.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/11/2014, 7:06 PM, Hart, Darren wrote:
>>> On 2/11/14, 16:04, "Bruce Ashfield" <bruce.ashfield at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Hart, Darren <darren.hart at 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?

Hmm. I hit a full 8 pack of conflicts and confirmed against the patches
I had available.

But thinking about that process, I was checking their existence in the
kernel-cache and may have assumed to much when I got deeper in the
conflicts .. maybe that's why I dislike unapplied patches so much ;)

Have a look at the kernel-cache, and this block of the series file:

##patches.minnowboard/pch_uart-use-dmi-interface-for-board-detection.patch
##patches.minnowboard/serial-pch_uart-remove-__initdata-annotation-from-dmi_table.patch
##patches.minnowboard/serial-pch_uart-fix-signed-ness-and-casting-of-uartclk-related-fields.patch
##patches.minnowboard/serial-pch_uart-fix-compilation-warning.patch
##patches.minnowboard/pch_gbe-convert-pr_-to-netdev_.patch
##patches.minnowboard/pch_gbe-use-managed-functions-pcim_-and-devm_.patch
##patches.minnowboard/pch_gbe-use-pch_gbe_phy_regs_len-instead-of-32.patch
##patches.minnowboard/pci-add-circuitco-vendor-id-and-subsystem-id.patch
##patches.minnowboard/pch_gbe-add-minnowboard-support.patch
##patches.minnowboard/0001-gpio-sch-Add-sch_gpio_resume_set_enable.patch
##patches.minnowboard/0002-minnowboard-Add-base-platform-driver-for-the-MinnowB.patch
##patches.minnowboard/0003-minnowboard-gpio-Export-MinnowBoard-expansion-GPIO.patch
##patches.minnowboard/0004-minnowboard-keys-Bind-MinnowBoard-buttons-to-arrow-k.patch

Which ones are you seeing that are missing ? I'll double check it myself
and pull in the missing ones.

Bruce

>
> --
> 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
>
>
>