[meta-intel] [Patch v3 01/12] intel-ucode: a new MACHINE_FEATURE for meta-intel BSPs

[Darren Hart]

On 10/3/14, 15:14, "nitin.a.kamble at intel.com" <nitin.a.kamble at intel.com>
wrote:

>From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble at intel.com>
>
>With this change, the Intel microcode support can be enabled or disabled
>for each of the BSP by using the MACHINE_FEATURES variable.
>  Any Intel platform BSPs can get the Intel microcode loading support
>by adding a line as seen below in the machine configuration.
>
>MACHINE_FEATURES += "intel-ucode"
>
>Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble at intel.com>
>---

Hi Nitin,

As a point of process, when sending new versions of patches, it is
customary to include a changelog after the --- after the Signed-off-by.
The format typically something like:

v2: Fix issue A reported by Joe
v3: Correct typographical errors

This aids the reviewers by providing context and reminding them of why the
next version was needed and saves them from having to review all past
discussions to ensure all commentary has been addressed.

 

> conf/machine/include/meta-intel.inc | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/conf/machine/include/meta-intel.inc
>b/conf/machine/include/meta-intel.inc
>index f43903e..b94e1dd 100644
>--- a/conf/machine/include/meta-intel.inc
>+++ b/conf/machine/include/meta-intel.inc
>@@ -22,8 +22,8 @@ XSERVER_X86_ASPEED_AST = "xf86-video-ast \
>            "
> 
> # include the user space intel microcode loading support in the
>generated images.
>-MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS_append = " intel-microcode iucode-tool"
>+MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS_append =
>"${@bb.utils.contains('MACHINE_FEATURES', 'intel-ucode', '
>intel-microcode iucode-tool', '', d)}"


I'm curious about why the inclusion of the two recipes here, rather than a
single one which pulls in the necessary dependencies. Does including
"intel-microcode" every make sense without the iucode-tool ?

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center