On 04/03/2012 03:59 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 14:51 +0530, Tushar Behera wrote: >> For Samsung LT kernel, we have followed an approach where in the commits >> in John's linaro_config_3.3 branch are taken to be stable commits and we >> have put those commits as the very first set of commits on LT kernel. >> Our LT kernel being a _serialized_ kernel where topic branches sit one >> over the other, the related config fragments are made part of the topic >> branches. >> >> A sample view of the same is posted at [1]. >> >> [1] git://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/samsung/kernel.git (lt/next) > > The Samsung tree has the non samsung config files, like > linaro-base.conf. I was wondering if that would cause merge problems if > every LT had them and at possibly different versions. I guess it doesn't
This method works well if the common config fragments, once committed to some upstream tree, are stable. Then only it makes sense to base other topics on top of this. > matter so long as all LTs got them from the same definitive 'upstream' > source, and that they didn't edit them. > > I think it makes sense if this 'upstream' doesn't include board files > though, they should come from LT trees. > As for the board specific fragments, I feel it would be better if the config-upstream tree has the initial fragment (which I suppose is minimal enough to compile the common kernel). That way anyone taking linux-linaro-tracking can have at least a working setup. As and when some topics get merged to mainline, we can move those config-fragments to upstream tree. > We also need a better upstream than John's personal Android tree :-) > I suppose, it would soon get a place in linux-linaro-tracking. -- Tushar Behera _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
