Hi Rafał and John, I update the patch and pull a new requests(329), please check and review, thanks! https://github.com/lede-project/source/pull/329
V5 patch update summary: 1.Copyrights assigned to myself. 2.Introduce DEVICE_TITLE and DEVICE_PACKAGES. 3.Rename patches prefix with 1xxx,2xxx... 4.Refresh patches by "make target/linux/refresh V=s" 5.Move default packages to DEFAULT_PACKAGES. 6.Optimize Build/mk_firmware. Thanks & Best Regards Jiang Yutang > -----Original Message----- > From: Lede-dev [mailto:lede-dev-boun...@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of > Y.T. Jiang > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 8:28 PM > To: Rafa? Mi?ecki > Cc: LEDE Development List; John Crispin > Subject: Re: [LEDE-DEV] merging the layerscape target > > Hi Rafał, > > Thank you for the detailed comment! > > Update status: > prefixed with ">" --done > Copyright --done > make target/linux/refresh V=s --done > Patches prefix with 1xxx,2xxx...refer target/linux/generic/PATCHES > --done > using DEVICE_TITLE DEVICE_PACKAGES...refer > target/linux/bcm53xx/image/Makefile --ongoing > > After building and features validate, I will submit a new version patch. > > > Thanks & Best Regards > Jiang Yutang > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rafał Miłecki [mailto:zaj...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 7:55 PM > > To: Y.T. Jiang > > Cc: John Crispin; LEDE Development List > > Subject: Re: [LEDE-DEV] merging the layerscape target > > > > On 19 September 2016 at 12:36, Y.T. Jiang <yutang.ji...@nxp.com> wrote: > > > Thank you for your review and suggestion. > > > > Sure. One more note: please take a look at your mailer configuration. > > It should keep all quotes prefixed with "> " to keep discussion clear. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_quoting > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Rafał Miłecki [mailto:zaj...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 4:01 PM > > > To: John Crispin > > > Cc: LEDE Development List; Y.T. Jiang > > > Subject: Re: [LEDE-DEV] merging the layerscape target > > > > > > On 18 September 2016 at 14:24, John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> wrote: > > >> i have just spent some time reviewing the layerscape PR [1] and > > >> started a full build of it. its starting to look good and i cannot > > >> see any blockers. if anyone has any hold on this please let me know > > >> in the next couple of days. if i dont get any vetos i will merge it. > > > > > > I can see following Copyright line over and over: > > > Copyright (C) 2016 OpenWrt.org > > > Yutang: did you really sign a contract with OpenWrt that included > > passing your copyrights to the OpenWrt project? If not, you should > > just keep Copyrights assigned to yourself. > > > I really would like assigning copyrights to projects where it > > > doesn't > > apply. > > > [I do not sign a contract with OpenWrt indeed. I refer to some > > > others target while developing/backporting layerscape, I find almost > > > of targets included OpenWrt.org Copyright, so I also put it in my > > > code files. Now should I replace " Copyright (C) 2016 OpenWrt.org" > with " > > > Copyright (C) 2016 Jiang Yutang <yutang.ji...@nxp.com>" ? or retain > > > the both copyright: "Copyright (C) LEDE project, Jiang Yutang > > > <yutang.ji...@nxp.com>" ?] > > > > You're correct, current sources are messy about this. I'm trying to > > stop adding mode incorrectly copyrighted code. > > > > You should only have something like: > > Copyright (C) 2016 Jiang Yutang <yutang.ji...@nxp.com> for the code > > you have written. > > > > > > > What about using some generic profile only and then using > > > DEVICE_TITLE > > DEVICE_PACKAGES to specify modules that should be included on rootfs? > > > [I will try to use the two variables.] > > > > Thanks! This will allow building images for customized boards with a > > single "make" call. It's part of recently introduced > > TARGET_PER_DEVICE_ROOTFS system. You may take a look at > > target/linux/bcm53xx/image/Makefile as an example. There is only 1 > > subtarget, but it should give you a hint anyway. > > > > > > > Would that be possible to split patches into accepted ones > > > (backports) > > and LEDE-specific ones? > > > [The kernel patches: dpaa/qbman/fman/etc. it is really too big and > > > interference review LEDE-specially code. I will split those kernel > > > patches in folder patches-4.4 as the second, and keep the rest as > > > fist LEDE-specific, what do you think about it?] > > > > For generic patches we have a following guide: > > target/linux/generic/PATCHES > > > > You may try to follow this, if possible. E.g. you could use 0xxx > > prefix for upstream accepted patches and some other prefix 1xxx, 2xxx, > > or whatever applicable for other ones. > > > > It isn't a strict rule for targets, but it should make your target > > easier to maintain I believe. > > > > > > > Please refresh all target patches, right now I can see they contain > > > all > > these things like: > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c index > > > 4cb98aa..a8a97bd 100644 > > > 1.7.9.5 > > > [I found it have conflicts in current kernel version with two > > > patches(arm64/mm related, 0060 and 0061) while backporting the > > > dpaa/qbman/fman driver, but I'm unacquainted with both mm and dpaa, > > > our dpaa team are engaged in do upstream work and can't help me. So > > > I revert the two patch to bypass this issue temporary, I would like > > > to wait for more leisure time then to thorough investigate and solve > > > it.] > > > > I think you misunderstood me. I don't have anything against your > > patches, just the format. Please call make target/linux/refresh V=s > > and that will convert all your patches to the expected format :) > > > > -- > > Rafał > _______________________________________________ > Lede-dev mailing list > Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
