[linux-yocto] [PATCH 2/2] intel-core*: Add baytrail soc support

[Darren Hart]

On 2/16/14, 18:37, "Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong at intel.com> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linux-yocto-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:linux-yocto-
>> bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Darren Hart
>> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 8:31 AM
>> To: Linux Yocto
>> Cc: Darren Hart
>> Subject: [linux-yocto] [PATCH 2/2] intel-core*: Add baytrail soc support
>> 
>> Include the BayTrail SoC feature in the two intel-common BSPs. The
>>BayTrail
>> SoC is used in both 32 and 64 bit environments.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart at linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>  .../bsp/intel-common/intel-core2-32.scc            |    5 ++++-
>>  .../bsp/intel-common/intel-corei7-64.scc           |    5 ++++-
>>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/meta/cfg/kernel-cache/bsp/intel-common/intel-core2-32.scc
>> b/meta/cfg/kernel-cache/bsp/intel-common/intel-core2-32.scc
>> index 5938932..b6d18a4 100644
>> --- a/meta/cfg/kernel-cache/bsp/intel-common/intel-core2-32.scc
>> +++ b/meta/cfg/kernel-cache/bsp/intel-common/intel-core2-32.scc
>> @@ -7,7 +7,10 @@
>> 
>>  include cfg/x86.scc
>> 
>> -# Supported platforms
>> +# Supported platforms and SoCs
>> +include features/soc/baytrail/baytrail.scc
>
>With the above included and more SoC in future into intel-core2-32.scc
>& intel-corei7-64.scc, platform that subscribes to either intel-core2-32
>or
>intel-corei7-64 will carry all the configs in each platform.
>Is there any reason behind this inclusion?
>Are we still adding the soc specific xxx.scc be into
>meta-intel/recipes-kernel/
>linux/linux-yocto_x.x.bbappend "KERNEL_FEATURES_" ?

The key distinction between features/soc/* and bsp/* is the former adds
support for specific pieces of silicon, while the latter adds support for
specific boards. That difference doesn't exist in the meta-data currently,
but it should. Only board-specific information should go under bsp/, which
means that directory should be able to be thinned out considerably for IA.
Any board-specific configuration data should be first placed in the
meta-intel recipe-space meta-data, and only in linux-yocto meta-data under
bsp as a last resort.

For example, fri2 sys940x and crownbay all enable the queensbay platform
and the tunnel creek SoC. There is a lot of duplication there which we can
minimize by putting the common silicon enabling bits in feature/soc. If
the individual bsp/* are still needed for some reason (mostly not), they
can remain and pull from the common feature/soc files, minimizing
duplication of data (and therefor bugs due to missing an update of one or
the other BSPs).

Does that help clarify the intent?


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