[meta-freescale] [meta-fsl-arm-extra][PATCH 1/2] linux-riotboard: Add separate riotboard kernel recipe

[Daiane Angolini]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Otavio Salvador
<otavio at ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Nikolay Dimitrov <picmaster at mail.bg> wrote:
>> On 04/27/2015 02:40 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Nikolay,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Nikolay Dimitrov <picmaster at mail.bg>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add dedicated RIoTboard kernel recipe for easier maintenance and patch
>>>> cherry-picking.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Dimitrov <picmaster at mail.bg>
>>>
>>>
>>> I want to check with you if you really want to have a dedicated
>>> recipe. For bugfixes (as now) you can use a bbappend as a temporary
>>> solution and, at end of the day, easy to remove once this is fixed in
>>> the kernel.
>>>
>>> Please let me know your thoughts...
>>
>>
>> Do you mean something like this (bbappend in meta-fsl-arm-extra)?
>>
>> diff --git a/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-fslc_4.0.bbappend
>> b/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-fslc_4.0.bbappend
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..d7a4e72
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-fslc_4.0.bbappend
>> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
>> +FILESEXTRAPATHS_append := ":${THISDIR}/${PN}"
>> +
>> +SRC_URI_imx6dl-riotboard = "file://riotboard-specific.patch"
>
> Yes.
>
>> Well, imho the difference between bbappending and having a separate
>> recipe is that the bbappending mechanism is retro-reactive - I can
>> bbappend patches to linux-fslc but in the meantime the board support
>> will be broken.
>>
>> Maintaining a separate kernel recipe for riotboard is a proactive way,
>> imho. When linux-fslc updates are happening, they won't immediately
>> break the riotboard, and after I test the updates I can update SRC_REV
>> to point it to a specific working commit, or as in my case point
>> SRC_REV to the latest commit and revert just one specific patch. The
>> advantage is that all the time the board support will be working.
>>
>> This was my motivation for the patch. Please tell me if there are any
>> drawback of having a separate board kernel recipe.
>
> Maintenance burden.
>
> Your thought is right but what should have been done was people to
> report this issue when we included 4.0 recipe.
>
> For now a bbappend would work as a band-aid while the real fix is
> being cooked.  I usually do not do design for the exception and I
> believe linux-fslc once fixed will be kept working for the board.
>
> This is really up to you but I think a boot test every time we prepare
> a bump linux-fslc would be enough to iron out the need of a specific
> recipe.

Otavio, I really don't like to see more and more linux providers on
top of linux-fslc. We already have too much linux providers.

For me it looks like a temporary fix being assumed mainline.

Daiane
>
> --
> Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
> http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
> Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
> --
> _______________________________________________
> meta-freescale mailing list
> meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale