On 2012-04-04, at 10:07 AM, Kevyn-Alexandre Paré wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2012-04-02, at 5:45 AM, Andy Green wrote:
>
>> On 04/02/2012 05:31 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>>> On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 20:59 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
On 03/31/2012 01:17 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
Hi,
On 2012-04-02, at 5:45 AM, Andy Green wrote:
> On 04/02/2012 05:31 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>> On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 20:59 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>>> On 03/31/2012 01:17 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 10:15 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>>>
On 04/04/2012 06:20 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> On 04/04/2012 01:02 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 10:05 +0530, Tushar Behera wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2012 03:59 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
I think it makes sense if this 'upstream' doesn't include bo
On 04/04/2012 01:02 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 10:05 +0530, Tushar Behera wrote:
>> On 04/03/2012 03:59 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
>>> I think it makes sense if this 'upstream' doesn't include board files
>>> though, they should come from LT trees.
>>>
>> As for the
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 10:05 +0530, Tushar Behera wrote:
> On 04/03/2012 03:59 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> > 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
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
On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 18:43 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> On 04/03/2012 06:29 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> > I think it makes sense if this 'upstream' doesn't include board files
> > though, they should come from LT trees.
>
> Normally "board files" means mach-xyz/board*.c for me
On 04/03/2012 06:29 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> 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 comm
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
On 04/03/2012 01:43 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 12:30 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>> The difficulty is that as Tixy earlier pointed out, are that the LT
>> kernel trees are mainline based, and thus aren't based off of something
>> that would contain the base/distro/board
On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 09:13 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> On 04/03/2012 02:58 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> > On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 11:18 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >> On 04/02/2012 10:29 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 08:37 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 12:30 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> The difficulty is that as Tixy earlier pointed out, are that the LT
> kernel trees are mainline based, and thus aren't based off of something
> that would contain the base/distro/board config fragments.
>
> One approach we might be able to
On 04/03/2012 03:30 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> On 04/02/2012 06:58 AM, Andy Green wrote:
>> On 04/02/2012 09:40 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>>> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 21:10 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
If you want to do it with this complex directory scheme,
On 04/03/2012 02:58 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 11:18 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>> On 04/02/2012 10:29 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 08:37 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 03/31/2012 02:17 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> We
On 04/03/2012 02:39 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 21:58 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
>> I don't want to sound like a broken record but we have been doing this
>> layered config stuff for a long time. It's a very good wheeze and
>> centralizing some of it will g
On 04/02/2012 11:58 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 11:18 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 04/02/2012 10:29 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 08:37 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 03/31/2012 02:17 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
We almost certainly need board s
On 04/02/2012 06:58 AM, Andy Green wrote:
On 04/02/2012 09:40 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 21:10 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
If you want to do it with this complex directory scheme, please don't so
anything to the definitive sources that makes it mandatory.
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 11:18 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 04/02/2012 10:29 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 08:37 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >> On 03/31/2012 02:17 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> >>> We almost certainly need board specific android and ubuntu fragments as
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 21:58 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> I don't want to sound like a broken record but we have been doing this
> layered config stuff for a long time. It's a very good wheeze and
> centralizing some of it will give good results if we can do it in a
> good
> way.
>
> Here's an examp
On 04/02/2012 10:29 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 08:37 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 03/31/2012 02:17 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
We almost certainly need board specific android and ubuntu fragments as
well, so I'll add vexpress-android.conf and vexpress-ubuntu.conf as
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 08:37 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 03/31/2012 02:17 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> > We almost certainly need board specific android and ubuntu fragments as
> > well, so I'll add vexpress-android.conf and vexpress-ubuntu.conf as
> > well. (Unless there is some magic to hav
On 03/31/2012 02:17 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 10:15 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
In that case, just go ahead and push the full config to the config tree.
If we need to do have fullly-enabled vs upstream builds we can deal with
the warnings in the latter case (or maybe fur
On 04/02/2012 09:40 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 21:10 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
>> If you want to do it with this complex directory scheme, please don't so
>> anything to the definitive sources that makes it mandatory.
>
> Just so I understand properly, ar
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 21:10 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> If you want to do it with this complex directory scheme, please don't so
> anything to the definitive sources that makes it mandatory.
Just so I understand properly, are you saying that for the TI kernels
you want to just supply a single fully
On 04/02/2012 08:42 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 12:40 +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
>> I guess I think the current split with board/base/{linaro|android} is
>> about right. At least if the common bits have a permanent home in a git
>> repo, then we hav
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 12:40 +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> I guess I think the current split with board/base/{linaro|android} is
> about right. At least if the common bits have a permanent home in a git
> repo, then we have a single place to apply system wide changes and the
> git log can expl
On 04/02/2012 07:40 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 11:31 +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
>> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 17:45 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
>>> On 04/02/2012 05:31 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>> [snipped my suggestion about organisin
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 11:31 +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 17:45 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> > On 04/02/2012 05:31 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> [snipped my suggestion about organising lots of config fragment]
>
> > I don't think this is a good way. Th
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 17:45 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> On 04/02/2012 05:31 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> > On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 20:59 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> >> We could have a separate topic branch for the linaro-base and ubuntu and
> >> fragments (not board specific)
On 04/02/2012 05:31 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 20:59 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> On 03/31/2012 01:17 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 10:15 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
In that case, just go ahead and push the full con
On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 20:59 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On 03/31/2012 01:17 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 10:15 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >>
> >> In that case, just go ahead and push the full config to the config tree.
> >> If we need to do have fullly-enabled vs u
On 04/02/2012 12:59 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> On 03/31/2012 01:17 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 10:15 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>>> Right right right. I forgot with the new topic branch method, everything
>>> based on mainline and not a tree Andrey m
On 03/31/2012 01:17 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 10:15 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
Right right right. I forgot with the new topic branch method, everything
based on mainline and not a tree Andrey maintains, so you don't have a
reference to the config tree.
Yes, Andrey's t
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 10:15 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> Right right right. I forgot with the new topic branch method, everything
> based on mainline and not a tree Andrey maintains, so you don't have a
> reference to the config tree.
Yes, Andrey's tree is a merge of all the LT and working group
On 03/30/2012 10:07 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 09:33 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 03/30/2012 01:19 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
To do that the vexpress config fragment will need to be a topic branch
on the ARM Landing Teams git, and every topic which changes a config
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 09:33 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 03/30/2012 01:19 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> > To do that the vexpress config fragment will need to be a topic branch
> > on the ARM Landing Teams git, and every topic which changes a config
> > needs to be stacked on top of that. Is t
On 03/30/2012 01:19 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 11:00 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 03/29/2012 02:22 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
John, I've attached a config fragment for Versatile Express.
Great! I've merged that in! There's a few warnings though:
Value requested
On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 11:00 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 03/29/2012 02:22 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> > John, I've attached a config fragment for Versatile Express.
> Great! I've merged that in! There's a few warnings though:
>
> Value requested for CONFIG_ARCH_VEXPRESS_DT not in final .co
On 03/29/2012 02:22 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 12:20 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
So after talking about it at the last Linaro Connect, I've finally
gotten around to making a first pass at providing config fragments for
the linaro kernel. I'd like to propose merging this
39 matches
Mail list logo
