On 04/25/2012 07:12 AM, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Andy Green<andy.gr...@linaro.org> wrote:
On 04/25/2012 03:43 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
Hi Andrey -
I've just created linux-linaro-core-tracking branch in
git://git.linaro.org/kernel/linux-linaro-tracking.git.
It is based on mainline tip, and has all the Platform and Working Groups
topics which would appear in the next linux-linaro kernel release. No
topics from the Landing Teams there (this is what "core" implies). This
Nice job, thanks for the new branch which definitely solves the
"chicken-and-egg".
In fact it's going to be a great tracking "fake future upstream" staging
point for all the good stuff being worked on that is not ready for
upstream yet. It'll help the LT trees look more consistently like
future upstreams where the vendor content is already in too, and let
people use technologies like UMM easily long before they appear
upstream. In that way hopefully we will provide
+1, hopefully that will make the LT life easier (specially yours, as
you're maintaining tons of patches).
I've changed basis to it (there's not much choice but to take that
approach since it's done with merges, but lack of any nexty content
means it was painless), and it has updated thermal, CMA (#21 -> #24) and
other little bits like Panda dt I could remove from our tree and use
these common versions for. Otherwise it made very few conflicts
compared to yesterday's Linus HEAD we were already on and the tree is as
workable as it was.
http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=landing-teams/working/ti/kernel.git;a=summary
Maybe it's something on my side but I noticed I have android logging
coming on my vanilla defconfig now. I can force it off in my defconfig,
but I am wondering if that's intentional?
We're still undergoing uplevel on tilt-tracking and didn't get back to
tilt-3.3 functionality yet (OMAP4 boot is busted, although hopefully we
have a fix for that today), so I put off this common config thing.
However now I see it included, aren't most of the patches about board
support redundant? If LTs base on this, they will add in their own
golden initial defconfig for their board(s) at that point; when they're
combined they'll all be in the combined tree. It seems like I shouldn't
be seeing a defconfig about Panda coming in with this base tree, but
create it (perhaps after mixing in config fragments that did come in
with the base tree) in my tree.
We could just have the fragments per topic, and then the LT can decide
either to add another fragment, or simply creating an entire different
config to be used by default.
Agreed. This looks like something we should be moving to.
Having everything in config fragments may help automating the builds,
but I understand that having one defconfig might also help people that
are consuming the tree directly.
We could drop these defconfigs from linux-linaro-core-tracking while
keeping them in the linux-linaro branch. One of the reasons for these
defconfigs are the ci builds and tests: we must have the kernel
configuration for every supported board in the tree. There is no
requirement for this kernel configuration to be the defconfigs. It could
be some script (in the tree) to produce the configs from the fragments,
or whatever else.
Thanks,
Andrey
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
