[meta-intel] [PATCH 0/4] AMT feature re-enabling commits

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 10:21 -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 10:06 -0500, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Zanussi, Tom
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 5:07 PM
> > > To: Kamble, Nitin A
> > > Cc: Hart, Darren; meta-intel at yoctoproject.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] AMT feature re-enabling commits
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 18:29 +0000, nitin.a.kamble at intel.com wrote:
> > > > From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble at intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > Here are few commits to re-enable AMT/MEI feature in the meta-intel
> > > layer.
> > > >
> > > > The previous lms recipe is replaced by lms7 & lms8 recipes to cover
> > > > boards with AMT v7 and also AMT v8 firmware.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Sorry, I was away at a conference and haven't been able to get to these yet,
> > > but one question I had was why you're creating two new recipes withe
> > > versions in the name rather than just using the normal PV for specifying
> > > versions?
> > 
> > Tom,
> >    There are 2 major versions, viz 7 & 8 of AMT/lms. And there is also further subversion. 
> > The AMT firmware on boards today is either major version 7 or 8. And BSPs can specify which
> > major version it needs. If the subversion of the lms recipe changes in future, then BSP need
> > not change to pick up the newer version lms recipe. They automatically will get the latest subversion
> > of the lms recipe with the desired major version. If not done this way, then full version need
> > to be mentioned in the BSP configuration. And that will change every time the lms recipe
> > version is changed.
> > 
> 
> Couldn't we do something like what we do with the kernel e.g.
> 
> PREFERRED_VERSION_lms ?= "7%"

Its conceivable that the user would need both versions, one for some
boards and one for the other so name spacing the versions here in PN
does sound like the right thing to do...

Cheers,

Richard