[meta-intel] [PATCHv2 4/5] meta-valleyisland: add kernel recipe for valleyisland

[Chang, Rebecca Swee Fun]

Hi all,

Thanks for all the input. I will remove _pn and use "=" and test build. After I'm done with verification, I will respin the pull request.

Thanks everyone.

Rebecca

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvhart at linux.intel.com]
> Sent: 25 March, 2014 6:39 AM
> To: Paul Eggleton
> Cc: Chang, Rebecca Swee Fun; meta-intel at yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [meta-intel] [PATCHv2 4/5] meta-valleyisland: add kernel recipe
> for valleyisland
> 
> On 3/24/14, 15:24, "Paul Eggleton" <paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Monday 24 March 2014 15:16:56 Darren Hart wrote:
> >> On 3/24/14, 15:11, "Paul Eggleton" <paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com>
> >>wrote:
> >> >On Monday 24 March 2014 15:07:10 Darren Hart wrote:
> >> >> On 3/24/14, 10:57, "rebecca.swee.fun.chang at intel.com"
> >> >>
> >> >> <rebecca.swee.fun.chang at intel.com> wrote:
> >> >> >+#############################
> >> >> >+# MACHINE = valleyisland-32 #
> >> >> >+#############################
> >> >> >+COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_valleyisland-32 = "valleyisland-32"
> >> >> >+KMACHINE_valleyisland-32 = "valleyisland-32"
> >> >> >+KBRANCH_valleyisland-32 = "standard/base"
> >> >> >+KERNEL_FEATURES_valleyisland-32 =
> >> >> >"features/valleyisland-io/valleyisland-io"
> >> >> >+
> >> >> >+LINUX_VERSION_valleyisland-32 = "3.10.32"
> >> >> >+SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_valleyisland-32 ?=
> >> >> >"61dde96f97bb5b1ed4c11caf9a857d55ad8f6e17"
> >> >> >+SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_valleyisland-32 ?=
> >> >> >"99c503a92885060bebf2bba6747735e8e9346a40"
> >> >>
> >> >> With respect the need for pn-linux-yocto here, this is because all
> >>the
> >> >> other SRCREV_machine* in meta-intel are using = instead of ?=.
> >> >> This
> >> >>
> >> >>won't
> >> >>
> >> >> get set because the base linux-yocto recipe specifies a SRCREV, so
> >>the
> >> >>
> >> >>?=
> >> >>
> >> >> will no override it. The pn-linux-yocto provides a more specific
> >>value
> >> >> which has not yet been set, so it sticks and gets applied.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just for consistency, the right answer is probably to use =
> >> >> instead
> >>of
> >> >>
> >> >>?=
> >> >>
> >> >> and drop the pn-linux-yocto.
> >> >>
> >> >> I do not really care for have "=" in the bbappend honestly. I
> >> >> wonder
> >>if
> >> >> Paul would have another recommendation here...
> >> >
> >> >What concerns you about using = here? I would have thought it was OK
> >> >in this situation; ?= is only really helpful where you want to apply
> >> >a default where a value that should override the default may already
> >> >have been set (e.g.
> >>in
> >> >local.conf where a desired value might have been set from the
> >> >command line).
> >>
> >> That is basically the concern, do we want people to be able to
> >>override it  easily? Perhaps the answer is no. I suspect SRCREV's are
> >>really not  something we want people messing with. We can still
> >>override in local.conf  using = right?
> >
> >We can if an additional override that is not present in the
> >recipe/append is used (e.g. pn-linux-yocto, assuming that is removed
> >from the append as you suggest).
> >
> >If the recipe is setting it with = then that does make it a little
> >harder to override, but I think with something like SRCREV that is a
> >good thing as you say.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Paul
> 
> Thank you Paul,
> 
> Rebecca, can you verify that this can work without the pn-linux-yocto by
> using "=" instead of "?=" ? We would prefer to remain consistent with BSPs in
> meta-intel so the same override rules and procedures can be applied to all
> the BSPs.
> 
> --
> Darren Hart
> Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
> Intel Open Source Technology Center
> 
> 
>