[meta-intel] [PATCH] xserver-xf86-config: remove redundant files, clean up broken ones

[Tom Zanussi]

On Fri, 2013-09-20 at 16:14 -0500, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: meta-intel-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-intel-
> > bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Darren Hart
> > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 2:11 PM
> > To: Zanussi, Tom
> > Cc: meta-intel at yoctoproject.org; Ong, Boon Leong; Haw, Foo Chien
> > Subject: Re: [meta-intel] [PATCH] xserver-xf86-config: remove redundant
> > files, clean up broken ones
> > 
> > On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 09:35 -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 00:43 +0100, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > > > On 19 September 2013 00:31, Darren Hart <dvhart at linux.intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 23:23 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
> > > > >> Most BSPs appear to be derived from what appears to be a stale
> > > > >> copy of the atom-pc xorg.conf which was either repeating defaults
> > > > >> (the screen configuration), pointlessly hard-coding (specifying
> > > > >> video driver when X can auto-probe), or actively harmful
> > > > >> (disabling hotplugged input devices).  Delete the files which can
> > > > >> be removed, and remove the bad hotplug disabling options from the
> > others.
> > > > >
> > > > > This has been something I've wanted to see improved for a long time.
> > > > > Typically we do changes like with one patch per BSP to help keep
> > > > > things a bit more flexible in the face of regressions.
> > > >
> > > > I started doing that but then got rapidly bored with copy-paste...
> > > > I can split it up though.
> > > >
> > > > > Which of these BSPs did you test and verify work after this patch?
> > > >
> > > > Two classes of patches: delete the file and trim the file.
> > > >
> > > > Where xorg.conf was deleted the only hardware I can (and did) test
> > > > it on was NUC.  I guess a representative sample of vesa and mga
> > > > hardware should be verified to still boot.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I pulled in the nuc changes, but will wait for the individual BSP
> > > owners to ack the changes for their BSPs before pulling in the others.
> > >
> > > > One instance of the trim patch was tested by Saul on his Minnow
> > > > (whose report of a broken touchscreen prompted this series) and
> > > > oe-core has had the same change for atom-pc/genericx86 for some time
> > now.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And of course Darren will need to pull in the minnow changes.
> > 
> > With the minnow tested now tested, I'm happy to see FRI2, SYS940x, and
> > Crownbay go in. In fact, that's enough I think for the series to go. Any other
> > objections?
> 
> Darren, Ross,
>   How are you testing? Just deleting file on the target?
> 
>  I am finding the commit is causing build failure for NUC.
> 

Hmm, I did a nuc build before pulling it in and didn't see any problems
here..

Tom

> Nitin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > --
> > Darren Hart
> > Intel Open Source Technology Center
> > Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > meta-intel mailing list
> > meta-intel at yoctoproject.org
> > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-intel