[linux-yocto] [kernel-cache][PATCH 0/2] fix tpm.cfg and add dm-verity

Bruce Ashfield bruce.ashfield at windriver.com
Wed Feb 15 06:59:48 PST 2017

On 2017-02-15 9:54 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 09:02 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 2017-02-15 8:37 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 09:36 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>> On 2017-02-08 05:07 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>>>>> This should be applicable to all branches which have the tpm.cfg file
>>>>> that I submitted recently. Sorry for missing the warning earlier - I
>>>>> must have mentally blocked it out instead of actually reading it :-/
>>>> No worries :D
>>>> I've merged these changes.
>>> Can this also be included into linux-intel-4.9.bb? Do you need a patch
>>> for meta-intel or were you going to do that anyway?
>> I assumed that Saul or Cal would pick up that part. I can copy them
>> when I do the SRCREV bumps for core, since that way it'll show up on
>> their radar.
> Didn't you send those SRCREV bumps already yesterday ("[OE-core] [PATCH
> 06/11] linux-yocto/4.8/4.9: fix tpm.cfg and add dm-verity")? ;-}

Yah, I sent those. But if anyone doesn't use linux-yocto directly, or
has their own SRCREVs, they need to follow at their own cadence.

>> I don't object to spinning a patch for other layers, but if someone
>> has a closer eye on the targets, it is better.
> Just wanted to know. It wasn't clear to me who maintains what (kernel
> cache, OE-core, meta-intel) and how the collaboration works in practice.

If it is part of oe-core or linux-yocto (and hence the kernel + meta 
data), it is me who maintains it. Anything else that uses it, and
carries SRCREVs in a layer .. it is the layer maintainer.



More information about the linux-yocto mailing list