On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Chris Simmonds <chris.simmo...@2net.co.uk> wrote: > Hello, > > I am working on behalf of an SoC vendor and I am trying to work out which > (if any) of the many git trees at http://git.linaro.org/gitweb we should
Is this a new SoC (no mainline support) or an existing SoC? > base our work on. I would like to use the Linaro code base because the > arch/arm support is ahead of mainline. But I also need a degree of > stability. > > Ideally I would like a "long term support" Linaro kernel. Since that doesn't > exist, one approach is use the linux-linaro-tracking tree but only use the > linux-linaro-3.0* tagged versions so that we can easily merge in changes > from v3.0 from kernel.org linux-stable. LTSI is something that is work in progress by the Linux Foundation. But that is directed towards products shipping with already enabled SoCs. I don't think it is a good tree to follow for new SoC enablement. > So my questions are > 1. Is this a rational approach? IMHO, you should be developing against mainline, say the last released kernel 3.3, if tracking 3.4-rc is too much. And then ask for it to be merged via the arm-soc tree if you have no other sub-arch maintainer above you. > 2. Is this how you imagine other projects interfacing with Linaro? Or should > we really be waiting for Linaro code to be mainlined and pulling from > kernel.org? If you need specific features from the Linaro tree, you should use git branches to track the tree and cherry-pick the bits that you do need. Can you give examples of things that you do need from the Linaro tree? /Amit _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
