On 11/14/2012 07:41 PM, Ryan Harkin wrote: > On 14 November 2012 11:38, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) <t...@linaro.org> wrote: >> Adding linaro-dev list and replying with some comments... >> On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 20:20 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote: >>> The llct tree itself has no suitable .conf or defconfig for vexpress at >>> all. That's the problem (wrt the ci jobs). >>> >>> The easier way seemed to be a single kernel/configs.git, >>> config-boards-tracking branch to provide the config fragments for all >>> the llct jobs. >>> But it creates several instances of the same <board>.conf files and adds >>> confusion. Agreed. >>> Should we do in the jenkins jobs something like 'git checkout >>> arm_lt/integration-linaro-vexpress.conf -- linaro/configs/vexpress.conf' >>> for vexpress and similar (but different and unique) command for the >>> other boards? >> >> Yes, I see the problem. But getting CI jobs to pull configs direct from >> an LT tree seems like the wrong solution. I guess what people really >> need is configs in linux-linaro-core-tracking (llct) (I'm sure people >> have told me that before and I possibly didn't listen enough). >> >> Now that the LT branches included in linux-linaro (ll) are based on >> llct, then they could modify the board configs in llct if required for >> the work in their topics. So at the moment, I can't think of a good >> reason not to pub all the board configs into llct. Can anyone else? >> >> I don't know if we need the board configs to be sourced from a single >> repo, or allow board configs to be included in llct from LT trees. One >> central repo means that people know where to go > > This seems like the easiest option to me. Let's do it this way unless > someone gives a valid objection. > >> (Unless we had >> an official maintainer to manage all commits to the tree.) > > I assume this would have to be Andrey. Andrey, are you OK with that? > Or does someone else need to do it? > > Each LT that is using LLCT would have to send a patch to get their > config updated. So long as this happens in a timely manner, LTs > should be able to live with that process. >
I suppose we are talking about the basic board config here. That should be ok. The new board enablement config fragments should always go in with the respective topic branches. > >> Or course, once Linaro's build and test infrastructure supports config >> fragments fully, then we could have have separate config fragments for >> - basic board config >> - new board enablement >> - special features (e.g. big.LITTLE MP) >> - testing or benchmarking config >> and the configs could live in the tree relevant to the code they apply >> to rather than having a single central board config we have to manage. > > That sounds scarey - there would be no one place to get a config, but > I guess, if you need a config for feature X, you'd also need the > branch for feature X that contained the source and config, so it would > work out fine. > > Cheers, > Ryan. > > _______________________________________________ > linaro-dev mailing list > linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev > -- Tushar Behera _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
