On 11/15/2012 07:50 AM, Tushar Behera wrote:
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.
Yes, only the basic board configs are for LLCT.
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
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
