[meta-freescale] Is there any point in keeping linux-imx.inc?

[Ernst Sjöstrand]

Hi,

well I'm just saying that
linux-fscl-imx is using the exact same code (SHA1:s even I would say!) as
linux-imx,
it's the same code in http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/linux-imx
as in
https://github.com/Freescale/linux-fslc/tree/4.1-2.0.x-imx

So there's no point having any reference to http://git.freescale.com,
and linux-fscl-imx.* makes linux-imx.inc and linux-imx_4.1.15.bb redundant.

Regards
//Ernst

2016-12-16 11:57 GMT+01:00 Richard Röjfors <richard.rojfors at gmail.com>:

> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Ernst Sjöstrand <ernstp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm trying to figure out the IMX/FSCL kernel branches and realized that
> > linux-fscl-imx and linux-imx is the same thing.
>
> I don't realise the same thing.
>
> My view is:
> -fslc- gets more stuff merged from upstreams and additional fixes brought
> in.
>
> linux-imx is FSL/NXP's slowly progressing tree. Why are they not
> trying to go mainline instead?
>
> --Richard
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-freescale/attachments/20161216/339ac510/attachment.html>