[PATCH 0/2] meta-intel: crownbay 3.2 update

[PATCH 0/2] meta-intel: crownbay 3.2 update

[tom.zanussi]

From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>

This updates crownbay and crownbay-noemgd to the 3.2 kernel.  It also
fixes a problem seen with a missing emgd dependency when testing.

The following changes since commit d9132cc66316be45f44beeea6eba734bb3ab337d:
  Tom Zanussi (1):
        ia32-base: remove libc-headers PREFERRED_PROVIDER

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.yoctoproject.org/meta-intel.git tzanussi/crownbay-kernel-3.2-switch
  http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-intel/log/?h=tzanussi/crownbay-kernel-3.2-switch

Tom Zanussi (2):
  meta-crownbay: switch to linux-yocto-3.2 kernel
  ia32-base: add libva display dependencies to emgd xserver

 conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc                 |    3 +++
 meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf    |    2 ++
 meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf           |    2 ++
 .../linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend              |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 .../recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend  |   17 +++++++++++++++++
 5 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
 create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend

[PATCH 1/2] meta-crownbay: switch to linux-yocto-3.2 kernel

[tom.zanussi]

From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>

Switch crownbay and crownbay-noemgd to the 3.2 kernel.

Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
---
 meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf    |    2 ++
 meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf           |    2 ++
 .../linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend              |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 .../recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend  |   17 +++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
 create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend

diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
index 2c80bd8..af85b00 100644
--- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
+++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
 #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems, without Intel-proprietary graphics bits
 # i.e. E660 + EG20T
 
+PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
+
 require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
 require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
 
diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
index 2c1ef3d..1458bff 100644
--- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
+++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
 #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems
 # i.e. E660 + EG20T
 
+PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
+
 require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
 require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
 
diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dee9bce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
+
+COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
+KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay"
+
+KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
+
+COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
+KMACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
+
+KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
+
+# Update the following to use a different BSP branch or meta SRCREV
+#KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
+#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
+#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
+
+#KBRANCH_crownbay = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
+#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
+#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3b02076
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
+
+COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
+KMACHINE_crownbay  = "crownbay"
+KBRANCH_crownbay  = "standard/default/crownbay"
+KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
+
+COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
+KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd  = "crownbay"
+KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd  = "standard/default/crownbay"
+KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
+
+SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
+SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
+
+SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
+SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
-- 
1.7.0.4

[PATCH 2/2] ia32-base: add libva display dependencies to emgd xserver

[tom.zanussi]

From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>

libgstmixvideoplugin.so is being blacklisted due to a missing
libva-tpi library, so add it and make the other two libva display
libraries available while we're at it.

Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
---
 conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc |    3 +++
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc b/conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
index 1fb09b1..7da53f6 100644
--- a/conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
+++ b/conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
@@ -54,6 +54,9 @@ XSERVER_IA32_I915 = "xf86-video-intel \
 
 XSERVER_IA32_EMGD = "emgd-driver-bin \
            libva-x11 \
+           libva-tpi \
+           libva-glx \
+           libva-egl \
            "
 
 XSERVER_IA32_VESA = "xf86-video-vesa"
-- 
1.7.0.4

Re: [PATCH 1/2] meta-crownbay: switch to linux-yocto-3.2 kernel

[Darren Hart]

Hi Tom,

Some thoughts on this with respect to cleaning up and simplifying the
recipes per our earlier discussions.

On 03/12/2012 09:37 PM, tom.zanussi@intel.com wrote:
> From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
> 
> Switch crownbay and crownbay-noemgd to the 3.2 kernel.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
> ---
>  meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf    |    2 ++
>  meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf           |    2 ++
>  .../linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend              |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  .../recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend  |   17 +++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
>  create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
> 
> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
> index 2c80bd8..af85b00 100644
> --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
> +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
> @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
>  #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems, without Intel-proprietary graphics bits
>  # i.e. E660 + EG20T
>  
> +PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
> +
>  require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
>  require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
>  
> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> index 2c1ef3d..1458bff 100644
> --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
>  #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems
>  # i.e. E660 + EG20T
>  
> +PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
> +
>  require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
>  require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
>  
> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..dee9bce
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> +FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
> +
> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
> +KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay"
> +
> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"

I think we start putting cfg/smp.scc in the BSP scc file directly rather
than in the recipe itself. This can be a follow-on patch, or just with
the next kernel release even. But I wanted to point it out.

> +
> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
> +KMACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
> +
> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
> +
> +# Update the following to use a different BSP branch or meta SRCREV
> +#KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
> +#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
> +#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
> +
> +#KBRANCH_crownbay = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
> +#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
> +#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..3b02076
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> +FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
> +
> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
> +KMACHINE_crownbay  = "crownbay"
> +KBRANCH_crownbay  = "standard/default/crownbay"

I believe crownbay no longer requires special patches right? Can we just
use the standard/default/base branch here and squash the crownbay branch?

> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
> +
> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
> +KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd  = "crownbay"
> +KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd  = "standard/default/crownbay"
> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
> +
> +SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
> +SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
> +
> +SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
> +SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"

The meta SRCREV shouldn't be unique from the base linux-yocto_3.2.bb
recipe, so this can be dropped and save the effort of updating it later.

If we use the standard/default/base branch, the machine SRCREV can also
be dropped.


-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] meta-crownbay: switch to linux-yocto-3.2 kernel

[Tom Zanussi]

On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 12:30 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Some thoughts on this with respect to cleaning up and simplifying the
> recipes per our earlier discussions.
> 
> On 03/12/2012 09:37 PM, tom.zanussi@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
> > 
> > Switch crownbay and crownbay-noemgd to the 3.2 kernel.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf    |    2 ++
> >  meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf           |    2 ++
> >  .../linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend              |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >  .../recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend  |   17 +++++++++++++++++
> >  4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
> >  create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
> > 
> > diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
> > index 2c80bd8..af85b00 100644
> > --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
> > +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
> > @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
> >  #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems, without Intel-proprietary graphics bits
> >  # i.e. E660 + EG20T
> >  
> > +PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
> > +
> >  require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
> >  require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
> >  
> > diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> > index 2c1ef3d..1458bff 100644
> > --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> > +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> > @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
> >  #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems
> >  # i.e. E660 + EG20T
> >  
> > +PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
> > +
> >  require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
> >  require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
> >  
> > diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..dee9bce
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
> > @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> > +FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
> > +
> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
> > +KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay"
> > +
> > +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
> 
> I think we start putting cfg/smp.scc in the BSP scc file directly rather
> than in the recipe itself. This can be a follow-on patch, or just with
> the next kernel release even. But I wanted to point it out.
> 

Yeah, I saw that and agree - I just don't want to spend the time to do
all that now.  I basically have this week to get them all moved over
into a basically functional state and will submit patches to do this and
the below as follow-ons once the basics are out of the way.

> > +
> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
> > +KMACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
> > +
> > +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
> > +
> > +# Update the following to use a different BSP branch or meta SRCREV
> > +#KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
> > +#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
> > +#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
> > +
> > +#KBRANCH_crownbay = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
> > +#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
> > +#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
> > diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..3b02076
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
> > @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> > +FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
> > +
> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
> > +KMACHINE_crownbay  = "crownbay"
> > +KBRANCH_crownbay  = "standard/default/crownbay"
> 
> I believe crownbay no longer requires special patches right? Can we just
> use the standard/default/base branch here and squash the crownbay branch?
> 

At the moment it doesn't, and I'll probably submit a patch to do that
for everything that it make sense for again after things are functional
with the simple changes first.

> > +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
> > +
> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
> > +KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd  = "crownbay"
> > +KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd  = "standard/default/crownbay"
> > +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
> > +
> > +SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
> > +SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
> > +
> > +SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
> > +SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
> 
> The meta SRCREV shouldn't be unique from the base linux-yocto_3.2.bb
> recipe, so this can be dropped and save the effort of updating it later.
> 

I don't really want to let the meta SRCREV float - I've run into a
couple nasty problems in the past letting that happen. i.e. nobody does
runtime testing of the BSPs when they change the meta SRCREV in the base
recipe.

> If we use the standard/default/base branch, the machine SRCREV can also
> be dropped.
> 

Agreed, if the machine branch changes to standard/default/base, I'll
change that too.

Tom

> 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] meta-crownbay: switch to linux-yocto-3.2 kernel

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 12:30 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> Some thoughts on this with respect to cleaning up and simplifying the
>> recipes per our earlier discussions.
>>
>> On 03/12/2012 09:37 PM, tom.zanussi@intel.com wrote:
>> > From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
>> >
>> > Switch crownbay and crownbay-noemgd to the 3.2 kernel.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
>> > ---
>> >  meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf    |    2 ++
>> >  meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf           |    2 ++
>> >  .../linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend              |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> >  .../recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend  |   17 +++++++++++++++++
>> >  4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>> >  create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
>> >  create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
>> >
>> > diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
>> > index 2c80bd8..af85b00 100644
>> > --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
>> > +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
>> > @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
>> >  #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems, without Intel-proprietary graphics bits
>> >  # i.e. E660 + EG20T
>> >
>> > +PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
>> > +
>> >  require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
>> >  require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
>> >
>> > diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
>> > index 2c1ef3d..1458bff 100644
>> > --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
>> > +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
>> > @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
>> >  #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems
>> >  # i.e. E660 + EG20T
>> >
>> > +PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
>> > +
>> >  require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
>> >  require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
>> >
>> > diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
>> > new file mode 100644
>> > index 0000000..dee9bce
>> > --- /dev/null
>> > +++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
>> > +FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
>> > +
>> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
>> > +KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay"
>> > +
>> > +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>
>> I think we start putting cfg/smp.scc in the BSP scc file directly rather
>> than in the recipe itself. This can be a follow-on patch, or just with
>> the next kernel release even. But I wanted to point it out.
>>
>
> Yeah, I saw that and agree - I just don't want to spend the time to do
> all that now.  I basically have this week to get them all moved over
> into a basically functional state and will submit patches to do this and
> the below as follow-ons once the basics are out of the way.
>
>> > +
>> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
>> > +KMACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
>> > +
>> > +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
>> > +
>> > +# Update the following to use a different BSP branch or meta SRCREV
>> > +#KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
>> > +#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
>> > +#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
>> > +
>> > +#KBRANCH_crownbay = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
>> > +#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
>> > +#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
>> > diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
>> > new file mode 100644
>> > index 0000000..3b02076
>> > --- /dev/null
>> > +++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
>> > +FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
>> > +
>> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
>> > +KMACHINE_crownbay  = "crownbay"
>> > +KBRANCH_crownbay  = "standard/default/crownbay"
>>
>> I believe crownbay no longer requires special patches right? Can we just
>> use the standard/default/base branch here and squash the crownbay branch?
>>
>
> At the moment it doesn't, and I'll probably submit a patch to do that
> for everything that it make sense for again after things are functional
> with the simple changes first.

There's one catch with this. We currently have the graphics drivers staged as
topic branches so they can be in tree, and be kept pristine. The BSPs merge
the graphics topic branch they want, and we can leverage common commits
across all the users.

If you drop the BSP branch, then the graphics changes need to be universally
safe for all similar BSPs, since that merge will now be to a shared branch.
That's normally fine, but for the case where we have multiple emgd versions,
it can break things.

We have complete flexibility to how we stage the branches, and how we
generate the content that is built, so this can change .. but that's
how we currently
have it setup. Those graphics merges are board specific changes and require
a branch.


>
>> > +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
>> > +
>> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
>> > +KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd  = "crownbay"
>> > +KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd  = "standard/default/crownbay"
>> > +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
>> > +
>> > +SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
>> > +SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
>> > +
>> > +SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
>> > +SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
>>
>> The meta SRCREV shouldn't be unique from the base linux-yocto_3.2.bb
>> recipe, so this can be dropped and save the effort of updating it later.
>>
>
> I don't really want to let the meta SRCREV float - I've run into a
> couple nasty problems in the past letting that happen. i.e. nobody does
> runtime testing of the BSPs when they change the meta SRCREV in the base
> recipe.

runtime testing is the hard part. I can build them .. but can't boot them all!

Cheers,

Bruce

>
>> If we use the standard/default/base branch, the machine SRCREV can also
>> be dropped.
>>
>
> Agreed, if the machine branch changes to standard/default/base, I'll
> change that too.
>
> Tom
>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto



-- 
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end"

Re: [PATCH 1/2] meta-crownbay: switch to linux-yocto-3.2 kernel

[Tom Zanussi]

On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 22:40 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 12:30 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> >> Hi Tom,
> >>
> >> Some thoughts on this with respect to cleaning up and simplifying the
> >> recipes per our earlier discussions.
> >>
> >> On 03/12/2012 09:37 PM, tom.zanussi@intel.com wrote:
> >> > From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
> >> >
> >> > Switch crownbay and crownbay-noemgd to the 3.2 kernel.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf    |    2 ++
> >> >  meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf           |    2 ++
> >> >  .../linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend              |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >  .../recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend  |   17 +++++++++++++++++
> >> >  4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >> >  create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
> >> >  create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
> >> > index 2c80bd8..af85b00 100644
> >> > --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
> >> > +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
> >> > @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
> >> >  #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems, without Intel-proprietary graphics bits
> >> >  # i.e. E660 + EG20T
> >> >
> >> > +PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
> >> > +
> >> >  require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
> >> >  require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> >> > index 2c1ef3d..1458bff 100644
> >> > --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> >> > +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> >> > @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
> >> >  #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems
> >> >  # i.e. E660 + EG20T
> >> >
> >> > +PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
> >> > +
> >> >  require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
> >> >  require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
> >> > new file mode 100644
> >> > index 0000000..dee9bce
> >> > --- /dev/null
> >> > +++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
> >> > @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> >> > +FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
> >> > +
> >> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
> >> > +KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay"
> >> > +
> >> > +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
> >>
> >> I think we start putting cfg/smp.scc in the BSP scc file directly rather
> >> than in the recipe itself. This can be a follow-on patch, or just with
> >> the next kernel release even. But I wanted to point it out.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, I saw that and agree - I just don't want to spend the time to do
> > all that now.  I basically have this week to get them all moved over
> > into a basically functional state and will submit patches to do this and
> > the below as follow-ons once the basics are out of the way.
> >
> >> > +
> >> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
> >> > +KMACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
> >> > +
> >> > +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
> >> > +
> >> > +# Update the following to use a different BSP branch or meta SRCREV
> >> > +#KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
> >> > +#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
> >> > +#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
> >> > +
> >> > +#KBRANCH_crownbay = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
> >> > +#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
> >> > +#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
> >> > diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
> >> > new file mode 100644
> >> > index 0000000..3b02076
> >> > --- /dev/null
> >> > +++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
> >> > @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> >> > +FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
> >> > +
> >> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
> >> > +KMACHINE_crownbay  = "crownbay"
> >> > +KBRANCH_crownbay  = "standard/default/crownbay"
> >>
> >> I believe crownbay no longer requires special patches right? Can we just
> >> use the standard/default/base branch here and squash the crownbay branch?
> >>
> >
> > At the moment it doesn't, and I'll probably submit a patch to do that
> > for everything that it make sense for again after things are functional
> > with the simple changes first.
> 
> There's one catch with this. We currently have the graphics drivers staged as
> topic branches so they can be in tree, and be kept pristine. The BSPs merge
> the graphics topic branch they want, and we can leverage common commits
> across all the users.
> 
> If you drop the BSP branch, then the graphics changes need to be universally
> safe for all similar BSPs, since that merge will now be to a shared branch.
> That's normally fine, but for the case where we have multiple emgd versions,
> it can break things.
> 
> We have complete flexibility to how we stage the branches, and how we
> generate the content that is built, so this can change .. but that's
> how we currently
> have it setup. Those graphics merges are board specific changes and require
> a branch.
> 

That's fine, I'm perfectly happy to have per-BSP machine branches.
They're cheap, and I don't really see the reason to be so parsimonious
with them.  Also, they're always there, so if we do need to have a place
to put the odd machine-specific patch now and then we don't have to add
a new branch when we need to add those patches, or remove them once
they're gone.  I guess the system was kind of designed for that (machine
branches, even if empty)?

> 
> >
> >> > +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
> >> > +
> >> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
> >> > +KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd  = "crownbay"
> >> > +KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd  = "standard/default/crownbay"
> >> > +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
> >> > +
> >> > +SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
> >> > +SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
> >> > +
> >> > +SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
> >> > +SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
> >>
> >> The meta SRCREV shouldn't be unique from the base linux-yocto_3.2.bb
> >> recipe, so this can be dropped and save the effort of updating it later.
> >>
> >
> > I don't really want to let the meta SRCREV float - I've run into a
> > couple nasty problems in the past letting that happen. i.e. nobody does
> > runtime testing of the BSPs when they change the meta SRCREV in the base
> > recipe.
> 
> runtime testing is the hard part. I can build them .. but can't boot them all!
> 

Exactly, which is why I'm happy to push the SRCREVs for a BSP once I've
tested it...

Tom

> Cheers,
> 
> Bruce
> 
> >
> >> If we use the standard/default/base branch, the machine SRCREV can also
> >> be dropped.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed, if the machine branch changes to standard/default/base, I'll
> > change that too.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > yocto mailing list
> > yocto@yoctoproject.org
> > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
> 
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] meta-crownbay: switch to linux-yocto-3.2 kernel

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 12-03-13 11:03 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 22:40 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>  wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 12:30 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>
>>>> Some thoughts on this with respect to cleaning up and simplifying the
>>>> recipes per our earlier discussions.
>>>>
>>>> On 03/12/2012 09:37 PM, tom.zanussi@intel.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Switch crownbay and crownbay-noemgd to the 3.2 kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf    |    2 ++
>>>>>   meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf           |    2 ++
>>>>>   .../linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend              |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>   .../recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend  |   17 +++++++++++++++++
>>>>>   4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>   create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>   create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
>>>>> index 2c80bd8..af85b00 100644
>>>>> --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
>>>>> +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
>>>>> @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
>>>>>   #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems, without Intel-proprietary graphics bits
>>>>>   # i.e. E660 + EG20T
>>>>>
>>>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
>>>>> +
>>>>>   require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
>>>>>   require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
>>>>> index 2c1ef3d..1458bff 100644
>>>>> --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
>>>>> +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
>>>>> @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
>>>>>   #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems
>>>>>   # i.e. E660 + EG20T
>>>>>
>>>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
>>>>> +
>>>>>   require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
>>>>>   require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000..dee9bce
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
>>>>> +FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
>>>>> +
>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
>>>>> +KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay"
>>>>> +
>>>>> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>>>
>>>> I think we start putting cfg/smp.scc in the BSP scc file directly rather
>>>> than in the recipe itself. This can be a follow-on patch, or just with
>>>> the next kernel release even. But I wanted to point it out.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, I saw that and agree - I just don't want to spend the time to do
>>> all that now.  I basically have this week to get them all moved over
>>> into a basically functional state and will submit patches to do this and
>>> the below as follow-ons once the basics are out of the way.
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
>>>>> +KMACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
>>>>> +
>>>>> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>>>> +
>>>>> +# Update the following to use a different BSP branch or meta SRCREV
>>>>> +#KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
>>>>> +#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
>>>>> +#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#KBRANCH_crownbay = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
>>>>> +#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
>>>>> +#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
>>>>> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000..3b02076
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
>>>>> +FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
>>>>> +
>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
>>>>> +KMACHINE_crownbay  = "crownbay"
>>>>> +KBRANCH_crownbay  = "standard/default/crownbay"
>>>>
>>>> I believe crownbay no longer requires special patches right? Can we just
>>>> use the standard/default/base branch here and squash the crownbay branch?
>>>>
>>>
>>> At the moment it doesn't, and I'll probably submit a patch to do that
>>> for everything that it make sense for again after things are functional
>>> with the simple changes first.
>>
>> There's one catch with this. We currently have the graphics drivers staged as
>> topic branches so they can be in tree, and be kept pristine. The BSPs merge
>> the graphics topic branch they want, and we can leverage common commits
>> across all the users.
>>
>> If you drop the BSP branch, then the graphics changes need to be universally
>> safe for all similar BSPs, since that merge will now be to a shared branch.
>> That's normally fine, but for the case where we have multiple emgd versions,
>> it can break things.
>>
>> We have complete flexibility to how we stage the branches, and how we
>> generate the content that is built, so this can change .. but that's
>> how we currently
>> have it setup. Those graphics merges are board specific changes and require
>> a branch.
>>
>
> That's fine, I'm perfectly happy to have per-BSP machine branches.
> They're cheap, and I don't really see the reason to be so parsimonious
> with them.  Also, they're always there, so if we do need to have a place
> to put the odd machine-specific patch now and then we don't have to add
> a new branch when we need to add those patches, or remove them once
> they're gone.  I guess the system was kind of designed for that (machine
> branches, even if empty)?

Exactly. We can collapse them where it makes sense, and keep there where
we need them. A machine branch is just that, a topic branch for development
and implicit documentation of a supported board. If a board may be extended
in the future .. a branch is nice to have.

I'm in favour of keeping the count in control, but see no need to collapse
them down completely. That and I spent an hour trying to figure out
how to do some fancy merge logic and while it could be done, it just
makes things more complex. I'd prefer branches to overly complex
branch management logic.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
>>
>>>
>>>>> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>>>> +
>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
>>>>> +KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd  = "crownbay"
>>>>> +KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd  = "standard/default/crownbay"
>>>>> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>>>> +
>>>>> +SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
>>>>> +SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
>>>>> +
>>>>> +SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
>>>>> +SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
>>>>
>>>> The meta SRCREV shouldn't be unique from the base linux-yocto_3.2.bb
>>>> recipe, so this can be dropped and save the effort of updating it later.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't really want to let the meta SRCREV float - I've run into a
>>> couple nasty problems in the past letting that happen. i.e. nobody does
>>> runtime testing of the BSPs when they change the meta SRCREV in the base
>>> recipe.
>>
>> runtime testing is the hard part. I can build them .. but can't boot them all!
>>
>
> Exactly, which is why I'm happy to push the SRCREVs for a BSP once I've
> tested it...
>
> Tom
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>>
>>>> If we use the standard/default/base branch, the machine SRCREV can also
>>>> be dropped.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed, if the machine branch changes to standard/default/base, I'll
>>> change that too.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yocto mailing list
>>> yocto@yoctoproject.org
>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

Re: [PATCH 1/2] meta-crownbay: switch to linux-yocto-3.2 kernel

[Darren Hart]

On 03/13/2012 08:08 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 12-03-13 11:03 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 22:40 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>  wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 12:30 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>
>>>>> Some thoughts on this with respect to cleaning up and simplifying the
>>>>> recipes per our earlier discussions.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/12/2012 09:37 PM, tom.zanussi@intel.com wrote:
>>>>>> From: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Switch crownbay and crownbay-noemgd to the 3.2 kernel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>   meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf    |    2 ++
>>>>>>   meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf           |    2 ++
>>>>>>   .../linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend              |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>   .../recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend  |   17 +++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>   4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>>   create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>>   create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
>>>>>> index 2c80bd8..af85b00 100644
>>>>>> --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
>>>>>> +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
>>>>>> @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
>>>>>>   #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems, without Intel-proprietary graphics bits
>>>>>>   # i.e. E660 + EG20T
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>   require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
>>>>>>   require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
>>>>>> index 2c1ef3d..1458bff 100644
>>>>>> --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
>>>>>> +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
>>>>>> @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
>>>>>>   #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems
>>>>>>   # i.e. E660 + EG20T
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>   require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
>>>>>>   require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 0000000..dee9bce
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
>>>>>> +FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
>>>>>> +KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay"
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we start putting cfg/smp.scc in the BSP scc file directly rather
>>>>> than in the recipe itself. This can be a follow-on patch, or just with
>>>>> the next kernel release even. But I wanted to point it out.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I saw that and agree - I just don't want to spend the time to do
>>>> all that now.  I basically have this week to get them all moved over
>>>> into a basically functional state and will submit patches to do this and
>>>> the below as follow-ons once the basics are out of the way.
>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
>>>>>> +KMACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +# Update the following to use a different BSP branch or meta SRCREV
>>>>>> +#KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
>>>>>> +#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
>>>>>> +#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#KBRANCH_crownbay = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
>>>>>> +#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
>>>>>> +#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 0000000..3b02076
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
>>>>>> +FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
>>>>>> +KMACHINE_crownbay  = "crownbay"
>>>>>> +KBRANCH_crownbay  = "standard/default/crownbay"
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe crownbay no longer requires special patches right? Can we just
>>>>> use the standard/default/base branch here and squash the crownbay branch?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At the moment it doesn't, and I'll probably submit a patch to do that
>>>> for everything that it make sense for again after things are functional
>>>> with the simple changes first.
>>>
>>> There's one catch with this. We currently have the graphics drivers staged as
>>> topic branches so they can be in tree, and be kept pristine. The BSPs merge
>>> the graphics topic branch they want, and we can leverage common commits
>>> across all the users.
>>>
>>> If you drop the BSP branch, then the graphics changes need to be universally
>>> safe for all similar BSPs, since that merge will now be to a shared branch.
>>> That's normally fine, but for the case where we have multiple emgd versions,
>>> it can break things.
>>>
>>> We have complete flexibility to how we stage the branches, and how we
>>> generate the content that is built, so this can change .. but that's
>>> how we currently
>>> have it setup. Those graphics merges are board specific changes and require
>>> a branch.
>>>
>>
>> That's fine, I'm perfectly happy to have per-BSP machine branches.
>> They're cheap, and I don't really see the reason to be so parsimonious
>> with them.  Also, they're always there, so if we do need to have a place
>> to put the odd machine-specific patch now and then we don't have to add
>> a new branch when we need to add those patches, or remove them once
>> they're gone.  I guess the system was kind of designed for that (machine
>> branches, even if empty)?
> 
> Exactly. We can collapse them where it makes sense, and keep there where
> we need them. A machine branch is just that, a topic branch for development
> and implicit documentation of a supported board. If a board may be extended
> in the future .. a branch is nice to have.
> 
> I'm in favour of keeping the count in control, but see no need to collapse
> them down completely. That and I spent an hour trying to figure out
> how to do some fancy merge logic and while it could be done, it just
> makes things more complex. I'd prefer branches to overly complex
> branch management logic.
> 

Agreed on the concept. What I'm not understanding is how is having to
get yocto/emgd-1.10 to merge with standard/base any different than
having to get it to merge with:

standard/default/crownbay
standard/default/common-pc-64/sugarbay
standard/default/fri2

etc.

emgd isn't premerged into these machine branches if I understand the scc
files correctly, so how is this any different? (I'm sure it is, I trust
you here, I would just like to understand what I'm missing).

--
Darren

> Cheers,
> 
> Bruce
> 
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
>>>>>> +KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd  = "crownbay"
>>>>>> +KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd  = "standard/default/crownbay"
>>>>>> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
>>>>>> +SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
>>>>>> +SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
>>>>>
>>>>> The meta SRCREV shouldn't be unique from the base linux-yocto_3.2.bb
>>>>> recipe, so this can be dropped and save the effort of updating it later.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't really want to let the meta SRCREV float - I've run into a
>>>> couple nasty problems in the past letting that happen. i.e. nobody does
>>>> runtime testing of the BSPs when they change the meta SRCREV in the base
>>>> recipe.
>>>
>>> runtime testing is the hard part. I can build them .. but can't boot them all!
>>>
>>
>> Exactly, which is why I'm happy to push the SRCREVs for a BSP once I've
>> tested it...
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If we use the standard/default/base branch, the machine SRCREV can also
>>>>> be dropped.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, if the machine branch changes to standard/default/base, I'll
>>>> change that too.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> yocto mailing list
>>>> yocto@yoctoproject.org
>>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yocto mailing list
>> yocto@yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
> 

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] meta-crownbay: switch to linux-yocto-3.2 kernel

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 12-03-14 12:05 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>
>
> On 03/13/2012 08:08 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 12-03-13 11:03 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 22:40 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>   wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 12:30 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some thoughts on this with respect to cleaning up and simplifying the
>>>>>> recipes per our earlier discussions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/12/2012 09:37 PM, tom.zanussi@intel.com wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Switch crownbay and crownbay-noemgd to the 3.2 kernel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>    meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf    |    2 ++
>>>>>>>    meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf           |    2 ++
>>>>>>>    .../linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend              |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>    .../recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend  |   17 +++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>    4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>    create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>>>    create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
>>>>>>> index 2c80bd8..af85b00 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
>>>>>>> +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
>>>>>>> @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
>>>>>>>    #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems, without Intel-proprietary graphics bits
>>>>>>>    # i.e. E660 + EG20T
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>    require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
>>>>>>>    require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
>>>>>>> index 2c1ef3d..1458bff 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
>>>>>>> +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
>>>>>>> @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
>>>>>>>    #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems
>>>>>>>    # i.e. E660 + EG20T
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>    require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
>>>>>>>    require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>> index 0000000..dee9bce
>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>> +++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
>>>>>>> +FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
>>>>>>> +KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we start putting cfg/smp.scc in the BSP scc file directly rather
>>>>>> than in the recipe itself. This can be a follow-on patch, or just with
>>>>>> the next kernel release even. But I wanted to point it out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I saw that and agree - I just don't want to spend the time to do
>>>>> all that now.  I basically have this week to get them all moved over
>>>>> into a basically functional state and will submit patches to do this and
>>>>> the below as follow-ons once the basics are out of the way.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
>>>>>>> +KMACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +# Update the following to use a different BSP branch or meta SRCREV
>>>>>>> +#KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
>>>>>>> +#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
>>>>>>> +#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +#KBRANCH_crownbay = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
>>>>>>> +#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
>>>>>>> +#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
>>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>> index 0000000..3b02076
>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>> +++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
>>>>>>> +FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
>>>>>>> +KMACHINE_crownbay  = "crownbay"
>>>>>>> +KBRANCH_crownbay  = "standard/default/crownbay"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe crownbay no longer requires special patches right? Can we just
>>>>>> use the standard/default/base branch here and squash the crownbay branch?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At the moment it doesn't, and I'll probably submit a patch to do that
>>>>> for everything that it make sense for again after things are functional
>>>>> with the simple changes first.
>>>>
>>>> There's one catch with this. We currently have the graphics drivers staged as
>>>> topic branches so they can be in tree, and be kept pristine. The BSPs merge
>>>> the graphics topic branch they want, and we can leverage common commits
>>>> across all the users.
>>>>
>>>> If you drop the BSP branch, then the graphics changes need to be universally
>>>> safe for all similar BSPs, since that merge will now be to a shared branch.
>>>> That's normally fine, but for the case where we have multiple emgd versions,
>>>> it can break things.
>>>>
>>>> We have complete flexibility to how we stage the branches, and how we
>>>> generate the content that is built, so this can change .. but that's
>>>> how we currently
>>>> have it setup. Those graphics merges are board specific changes and require
>>>> a branch.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's fine, I'm perfectly happy to have per-BSP machine branches.
>>> They're cheap, and I don't really see the reason to be so parsimonious
>>> with them.  Also, they're always there, so if we do need to have a place
>>> to put the odd machine-specific patch now and then we don't have to add
>>> a new branch when we need to add those patches, or remove them once
>>> they're gone.  I guess the system was kind of designed for that (machine
>>> branches, even if empty)?
>>
>> Exactly. We can collapse them where it makes sense, and keep there where
>> we need them. A machine branch is just that, a topic branch for development
>> and implicit documentation of a supported board. If a board may be extended
>> in the future .. a branch is nice to have.
>>
>> I'm in favour of keeping the count in control, but see no need to collapse
>> them down completely. That and I spent an hour trying to figure out
>> how to do some fancy merge logic and while it could be done, it just
>> makes things more complex. I'd prefer branches to overly complex
>> branch management logic.
>>
>
> Agreed on the concept. What I'm not understanding is how is having to
> get yocto/emgd-1.10 to merge with standard/base any different than
> having to get it to merge with:
>
> standard/default/crownbay
> standard/default/common-pc-64/sugarbay
> standard/default/fri2
>
> etc.
>
> emgd isn't premerged into these machine branches if I understand the scc
> files correctly, so how is this any different? (I'm sure it is, I trust
> you here, I would just like to understand what I'm missing).

When a tree is built from scratch (from the meta data + patch repo), or
when BSP validation runs across a tree. All BSPs are constructed in a
single tree. If you have merges into common branches, the third, fourth
or fifth one is going to eventually explode.

That being said, I *can* inhibit the merges during tree construction and
only do it when individual boards are built. But in that scenario, we miss
an opportunity for automated/bulk validation that the merges are safe
and valid.

So your observation is correct, and it's just a use case of the descriptions

That's why I mentioned that we can collapse them, but there is an increase
in complexity. Something to keep in our back pocket, since it's there
to use when we need it.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> --
> Darren
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
>>>>>>> +KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd  = "crownbay"
>>>>>>> +KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd  = "standard/default/crownbay"
>>>>>>> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
>>>>>>> +SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
>>>>>>> +SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The meta SRCREV shouldn't be unique from the base linux-yocto_3.2.bb
>>>>>> recipe, so this can be dropped and save the effort of updating it later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't really want to let the meta SRCREV float - I've run into a
>>>>> couple nasty problems in the past letting that happen. i.e. nobody does
>>>>> runtime testing of the BSPs when they change the meta SRCREV in the base
>>>>> recipe.
>>>>
>>>> runtime testing is the hard part. I can build them .. but can't boot them all!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly, which is why I'm happy to push the SRCREVs for a BSP once I've
>>> tested it...
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If we use the standard/default/base branch, the machine SRCREV can also
>>>>>> be dropped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed, if the machine branch changes to standard/default/base, I'll
>>>>> change that too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> yocto mailing list
>>>>> yocto@yoctoproject.org
>>>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yocto mailing list
>>> yocto@yoctoproject.org
>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>>
>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] meta-crownbay: switch to linux-yocto-3.2 kernel

[Darren Hart]

On 03/13/2012 09:12 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 12-03-14 12:05 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/13/2012 08:08 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>> On 12-03-13 11:03 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 22:40 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>   wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 12:30 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:

...

>>>>>>> I believe crownbay no longer requires special patches right? Can we just
>>>>>>> use the standard/default/base branch here and squash the crownbay branch?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the moment it doesn't, and I'll probably submit a patch to do that
>>>>>> for everything that it make sense for again after things are functional
>>>>>> with the simple changes first.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's one catch with this. We currently have the graphics drivers staged as
>>>>> topic branches so they can be in tree, and be kept pristine. The BSPs merge
>>>>> the graphics topic branch they want, and we can leverage common commits
>>>>> across all the users.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you drop the BSP branch, then the graphics changes need to be universally
>>>>> safe for all similar BSPs, since that merge will now be to a shared branch.
>>>>> That's normally fine, but for the case where we have multiple emgd versions,
>>>>> it can break things.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have complete flexibility to how we stage the branches, and how we
>>>>> generate the content that is built, so this can change .. but that's
>>>>> how we currently
>>>>> have it setup. Those graphics merges are board specific changes and require
>>>>> a branch.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's fine, I'm perfectly happy to have per-BSP machine branches.
>>>> They're cheap, and I don't really see the reason to be so parsimonious
>>>> with them.  Also, they're always there, so if we do need to have a place
>>>> to put the odd machine-specific patch now and then we don't have to add
>>>> a new branch when we need to add those patches, or remove them once
>>>> they're gone.  I guess the system was kind of designed for that (machine
>>>> branches, even if empty)?
>>>
>>> Exactly. We can collapse them where it makes sense, and keep there where
>>> we need them. A machine branch is just that, a topic branch for development
>>> and implicit documentation of a supported board. If a board may be extended
>>> in the future .. a branch is nice to have.
>>>
>>> I'm in favour of keeping the count in control, but see no need to collapse
>>> them down completely. That and I spent an hour trying to figure out
>>> how to do some fancy merge logic and while it could be done, it just
>>> makes things more complex. I'd prefer branches to overly complex
>>> branch management logic.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed on the concept. What I'm not understanding is how is having to
>> get yocto/emgd-1.10 to merge with standard/base any different than
>> having to get it to merge with:
>>
>> standard/default/crownbay
>> standard/default/common-pc-64/sugarbay
>> standard/default/fri2
>>
>> etc.
>>
>> emgd isn't premerged into these machine branches if I understand the scc
>> files correctly, so how is this any different? (I'm sure it is, I trust
>> you here, I would just like to understand what I'm missing).
> 
> When a tree is built from scratch (from the meta data + patch repo), or
> when BSP validation runs across a tree. All BSPs are constructed in a
> single tree. If you have merges into common branches, the third, fourth
> or fifth one is going to eventually explode.

It seems like the obvious answer here is to always create a machine
branch during tree construction if one does not already exist. This
would address the concerns of automated bulk validation while still
keeping the branching in the git tree to a minimum. Very few users will
be manipulating the git tree in the WORKDIR, and those that do are
expected to be advanced git users that can run:

$ git cherry standard/base

So why do I care about keeping the branch count down?

o It helps make it explicit where we have deviated from mainline.
  - Clear visibility into this is one thing that users have
    complained about.
  - It maintains the 1:1 mapping between branches and actual source
    changes we've discussed.

o It encourages people creating new BSPs to use an existing branch
  if at all possible.
  - We can encourage people to do this, but unless it is clear we
    are following this advice ourselves, others will not follow.

Taking a hard line on this is also part of boiling down our language and
firming up policy and tool definition. Doing so makes things more clear,
easier to learn, understand, contribute to, as well as maintain and debug.

--
Darren


> 
> That being said, I *can* inhibit the merges during tree construction and
> only do it when individual boards are built. But in that scenario, we miss
> an opportunity for automated/bulk validation that the merges are safe
> and valid.
> 
> So your observation is correct, and it's just a use case of the descriptions
> 
> That's why I mentioned that we can collapse them, but there is an increase
> in complexity. Something to keep in our back pocket, since it's there
> to use when we need it.
> 


-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] meta-crownbay: switch to linux-yocto-3.2 kernel

[Tom Zanussi]

On Wed, 2012-03-14 at 07:45 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On 03/13/2012 09:12 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> > On 12-03-14 12:05 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 03/13/2012 08:08 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> >>> On 12-03-13 11:03 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 22:40 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>   wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 12:30 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> >>>>>>> I believe crownbay no longer requires special patches right? Can we just
> >>>>>>> use the standard/default/base branch here and squash the crownbay branch?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> At the moment it doesn't, and I'll probably submit a patch to do that
> >>>>>> for everything that it make sense for again after things are functional
> >>>>>> with the simple changes first.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There's one catch with this. We currently have the graphics drivers staged as
> >>>>> topic branches so they can be in tree, and be kept pristine. The BSPs merge
> >>>>> the graphics topic branch they want, and we can leverage common commits
> >>>>> across all the users.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you drop the BSP branch, then the graphics changes need to be universally
> >>>>> safe for all similar BSPs, since that merge will now be to a shared branch.
> >>>>> That's normally fine, but for the case where we have multiple emgd versions,
> >>>>> it can break things.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have complete flexibility to how we stage the branches, and how we
> >>>>> generate the content that is built, so this can change .. but that's
> >>>>> how we currently
> >>>>> have it setup. Those graphics merges are board specific changes and require
> >>>>> a branch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That's fine, I'm perfectly happy to have per-BSP machine branches.
> >>>> They're cheap, and I don't really see the reason to be so parsimonious
> >>>> with them.  Also, they're always there, so if we do need to have a place
> >>>> to put the odd machine-specific patch now and then we don't have to add
> >>>> a new branch when we need to add those patches, or remove them once
> >>>> they're gone.  I guess the system was kind of designed for that (machine
> >>>> branches, even if empty)?
> >>>
> >>> Exactly. We can collapse them where it makes sense, and keep there where
> >>> we need them. A machine branch is just that, a topic branch for development
> >>> and implicit documentation of a supported board. If a board may be extended
> >>> in the future .. a branch is nice to have.
> >>>
> >>> I'm in favour of keeping the count in control, but see no need to collapse
> >>> them down completely. That and I spent an hour trying to figure out
> >>> how to do some fancy merge logic and while it could be done, it just
> >>> makes things more complex. I'd prefer branches to overly complex
> >>> branch management logic.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Agreed on the concept. What I'm not understanding is how is having to
> >> get yocto/emgd-1.10 to merge with standard/base any different than
> >> having to get it to merge with:
> >>
> >> standard/default/crownbay
> >> standard/default/common-pc-64/sugarbay
> >> standard/default/fri2
> >>
> >> etc.
> >>
> >> emgd isn't premerged into these machine branches if I understand the scc
> >> files correctly, so how is this any different? (I'm sure it is, I trust
> >> you here, I would just like to understand what I'm missing).
> > 
> > When a tree is built from scratch (from the meta data + patch repo), or
> > when BSP validation runs across a tree. All BSPs are constructed in a
> > single tree. If you have merges into common branches, the third, fourth
> > or fifth one is going to eventually explode.
> 
> It seems like the obvious answer here is to always create a machine
> branch during tree construction if one does not already exist. This
> would address the concerns of automated bulk validation while still
> keeping the branching in the git tree to a minimum. Very few users will
> be manipulating the git tree in the WORKDIR, and those that do are
> expected to be advanced git users that can run:
> 
> $ git cherry standard/base
> 
> So why do I care about keeping the branch count down?
> 
> o It helps make it explicit where we have deviated from mainline.
>   - Clear visibility into this is one thing that users have
>     complained about.
>   - It maintains the 1:1 mapping between branches and actual source
>     changes we've discussed.
> 
> o It encourages people creating new BSPs to use an existing branch
>   if at all possible.
>   - We can encourage people to do this, but unless it is clear we
>     are following this advice ourselves, others will not follow.
> 
> Taking a hard line on this is also part of boiling down our language and
> firming up policy and tool definition. Doing so makes things more clear,
> easier to learn, understand, contribute to, as well as maintain and debug.
> 

In principle, I agree.  The main thing I don't like about it is the
potential there is for ping-ponging between having to add a branch
because we have a single BSP-specific patch and then having to remove
that branch again when it goes upstream or is no longer needed.

Users can use standard git queries to find out whether a machine branch
currently has anything that differs from its parent - I'm not sure
counting on the existence of a branch as a quick indicator that it
deviates from mainline is really all that useful for users, but maybe it
is.

In any case, it's a minor point and in the end if it makes things easier
for users, that trumps everything else...

Tom

> --
> Darren
> 
> 
> > 
> > That being said, I *can* inhibit the merges during tree construction and
> > only do it when individual boards are built. But in that scenario, we miss
> > an opportunity for automated/bulk validation that the merges are safe
> > and valid.
> > 
> > So your observation is correct, and it's just a use case of the descriptions
> > 
> > That's why I mentioned that we can collapse them, but there is an increase
> > in complexity. Something to keep in our back pocket, since it's there
> > to use when we need it.
> > 
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] meta-crownbay: switch to linux-yocto-3.2 kernel

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 12-03-14 10:45 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
> On 03/13/2012 09:12 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 12-03-14 12:05 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/13/2012 08:08 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>> On 12-03-13 11:03 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 22:40 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>    wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 12:30 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>>>>>> I believe crownbay no longer requires special patches right? Can we just
>>>>>>>> use the standard/default/base branch here and squash the crownbay branch?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the moment it doesn't, and I'll probably submit a patch to do that
>>>>>>> for everything that it make sense for again after things are functional
>>>>>>> with the simple changes first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's one catch with this. We currently have the graphics drivers staged as
>>>>>> topic branches so they can be in tree, and be kept pristine. The BSPs merge
>>>>>> the graphics topic branch they want, and we can leverage common commits
>>>>>> across all the users.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you drop the BSP branch, then the graphics changes need to be universally
>>>>>> safe for all similar BSPs, since that merge will now be to a shared branch.
>>>>>> That's normally fine, but for the case where we have multiple emgd versions,
>>>>>> it can break things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have complete flexibility to how we stage the branches, and how we
>>>>>> generate the content that is built, so this can change .. but that's
>>>>>> how we currently
>>>>>> have it setup. Those graphics merges are board specific changes and require
>>>>>> a branch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's fine, I'm perfectly happy to have per-BSP machine branches.
>>>>> They're cheap, and I don't really see the reason to be so parsimonious
>>>>> with them.  Also, they're always there, so if we do need to have a place
>>>>> to put the odd machine-specific patch now and then we don't have to add
>>>>> a new branch when we need to add those patches, or remove them once
>>>>> they're gone.  I guess the system was kind of designed for that (machine
>>>>> branches, even if empty)?
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. We can collapse them where it makes sense, and keep there where
>>>> we need them. A machine branch is just that, a topic branch for development
>>>> and implicit documentation of a supported board. If a board may be extended
>>>> in the future .. a branch is nice to have.
>>>>
>>>> I'm in favour of keeping the count in control, but see no need to collapse
>>>> them down completely. That and I spent an hour trying to figure out
>>>> how to do some fancy merge logic and while it could be done, it just
>>>> makes things more complex. I'd prefer branches to overly complex
>>>> branch management logic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed on the concept. What I'm not understanding is how is having to
>>> get yocto/emgd-1.10 to merge with standard/base any different than
>>> having to get it to merge with:
>>>
>>> standard/default/crownbay
>>> standard/default/common-pc-64/sugarbay
>>> standard/default/fri2
>>>
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> emgd isn't premerged into these machine branches if I understand the scc
>>> files correctly, so how is this any different? (I'm sure it is, I trust
>>> you here, I would just like to understand what I'm missing).
>>
>> When a tree is built from scratch (from the meta data + patch repo), or
>> when BSP validation runs across a tree. All BSPs are constructed in a
>> single tree. If you have merges into common branches, the third, fourth
>> or fifth one is going to eventually explode.
>
> It seems like the obvious answer here is to always create a machine
> branch during tree construction if one does not already exist. This

That can be done .. and I've done it in the past, dynamic branches
are supported within the tools. But there are always issues:

   - anything dynamic is never as smart as someone specifying a feature
     description and deciding whether or not they want a branch. I've
     nearly always regretted dynamically creating branches in the past.

   - It's not just machine descriptions that trigger merges, any feature
     can have one if it has a topic branch that is being maintained in
     that manner. So I tread carefully here to not introduce special
     cases. We are talking about a known optional, board specific merge.
     A human can make that call pretty easily and specify that they
     want a branch.

   - Some people just like to build the branch that they want to build.
     Since, for example, they might be pushing changes onto a non
     machine specific branch and expecting it to build .. and sometimes
     that branch isn't even the parent branch (i.e. some temp build). It
     also means that working in the build tree patches don't have a 1:1
     home in a source repository. But there are other things that make
     this a non-ideal workflow, so I don't really mind making it harder :)

     That was the whole intent of KBRANCH. You specify explicitly what
     you want to build, and the system lets you build that branch. This
     means that you'll build the same content .. but maybe not that
     branch.

   - Tree generation would have to dynamically create them, and then
     remove the non-static branches when it completed. Completely doable,
     but with a complexity cost. Complete tree generation and per-machine
     building would now differ (although minor).

> would address the concerns of automated bulk validation while still
> keeping the branching in the git tree to a minimum. Very few users will
> be manipulating the git tree in the WORKDIR, and those that do are
> expected to be advanced git users that can run:
>
> $ git cherry standard/base
>
> So why do I care about keeping the branch count down?
>
> o It helps make it explicit where we have deviated from mainline.
>    - Clear visibility into this is one thing that users have
>      complained about.
>    - It maintains the 1:1 mapping between branches and actual source
>      changes we've discussed.

There are far worse examples of non-obvious branches out there, but
I don't disagree with the principle.

>
> o It encourages people creating new BSPs to use an existing branch
>    if at all possible.
>    - We can encourage people to do this, but unless it is clear we
>      are following this advice ourselves, others will not follow.

I don't really have big problem with people working on machine branches :)
It's just a topic branch that holds work, it's like anything you do in
a git repo .. do it on your own branch .. and then merge it back.

Anyway, I'm making changes to quite a few things right now in the tools,
and we don't want to do this for 1.2, so let me think about this for a
day and see if any other use cases break.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> Taking a hard line on this is also part of boiling down our language and
> firming up policy and tool definition. Doing so makes things more clear,
> easier to learn, understand, contribute to, as well as maintain and debug.
>
> --
> Darren
>
>
>>
>> That being said, I *can* inhibit the merges during tree construction and
>> only do it when individual boards are built. But in that scenario, we miss
>> an opportunity for automated/bulk validation that the merges are safe
>> and valid.
>>
>> So your observation is correct, and it's just a use case of the descriptions
>>
>> That's why I mentioned that we can collapse them, but there is an increase
>> in complexity. Something to keep in our back pocket, since it's there
>> to use when we need it.
>>
>
>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] meta-crownbay: switch to linux-yocto-3.2 kernel

[Darren Hart]

On 03/14/2012 01:25 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 12-03-14 10:45 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>> On 03/13/2012 09:12 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>> On 12-03-14 12:05 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/13/2012 08:08 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>>> On 12-03-13 11:03 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 22:40 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>    wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 12:30 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe crownbay no longer requires special patches right? Can we just
>>>>>>>>> use the standard/default/base branch here and squash the crownbay branch?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At the moment it doesn't, and I'll probably submit a patch to do that
>>>>>>>> for everything that it make sense for again after things are functional
>>>>>>>> with the simple changes first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's one catch with this. We currently have the graphics drivers staged as
>>>>>>> topic branches so they can be in tree, and be kept pristine. The BSPs merge
>>>>>>> the graphics topic branch they want, and we can leverage common commits
>>>>>>> across all the users.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you drop the BSP branch, then the graphics changes need to be universally
>>>>>>> safe for all similar BSPs, since that merge will now be to a shared branch.
>>>>>>> That's normally fine, but for the case where we have multiple emgd versions,
>>>>>>> it can break things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have complete flexibility to how we stage the branches, and how we
>>>>>>> generate the content that is built, so this can change .. but that's
>>>>>>> how we currently
>>>>>>> have it setup. Those graphics merges are board specific changes and require
>>>>>>> a branch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's fine, I'm perfectly happy to have per-BSP machine branches.
>>>>>> They're cheap, and I don't really see the reason to be so parsimonious
>>>>>> with them.  Also, they're always there, so if we do need to have a place
>>>>>> to put the odd machine-specific patch now and then we don't have to add
>>>>>> a new branch when we need to add those patches, or remove them once
>>>>>> they're gone.  I guess the system was kind of designed for that (machine
>>>>>> branches, even if empty)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. We can collapse them where it makes sense, and keep there where
>>>>> we need them. A machine branch is just that, a topic branch for development
>>>>> and implicit documentation of a supported board. If a board may be extended
>>>>> in the future .. a branch is nice to have.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm in favour of keeping the count in control, but see no need to collapse
>>>>> them down completely. That and I spent an hour trying to figure out
>>>>> how to do some fancy merge logic and while it could be done, it just
>>>>> makes things more complex. I'd prefer branches to overly complex
>>>>> branch management logic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agreed on the concept. What I'm not understanding is how is having to
>>>> get yocto/emgd-1.10 to merge with standard/base any different than
>>>> having to get it to merge with:
>>>>
>>>> standard/default/crownbay
>>>> standard/default/common-pc-64/sugarbay
>>>> standard/default/fri2
>>>>
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> emgd isn't premerged into these machine branches if I understand the scc
>>>> files correctly, so how is this any different? (I'm sure it is, I trust
>>>> you here, I would just like to understand what I'm missing).
>>>
>>> When a tree is built from scratch (from the meta data + patch repo), or
>>> when BSP validation runs across a tree. All BSPs are constructed in a
>>> single tree. If you have merges into common branches, the third, fourth
>>> or fifth one is going to eventually explode.
>>
>> It seems like the obvious answer here is to always create a machine
>> branch during tree construction if one does not already exist. This
> 
> That can be done .. and I've done it in the past, dynamic branches
> are supported within the tools. But there are always issues:
> 
>    - anything dynamic is never as smart as someone specifying a feature
>      description and deciding whether or not they want a branch. I've
>      nearly always regretted dynamically creating branches in the past.
> 
>    - It's not just machine descriptions that trigger merges, any feature
>      can have one if it has a topic branch that is being maintained in
>      that manner. So I tread carefully here to not introduce special
>      cases. We are talking about a known optional, board specific merge.
>      A human can make that call pretty easily and specify that they
>      want a branch.
> 
>    - Some people just like to build the branch that they want to build.
>      Since, for example, they might be pushing changes onto a non
>      machine specific branch and expecting it to build .. and sometimes
>      that branch isn't even the parent branch (i.e. some temp build). It
>      also means that working in the build tree patches don't have a 1:1
>      home in a source repository. But there are other things that make
>      this a non-ideal workflow, so I don't really mind making it harder :)
> 
>      That was the whole intent of KBRANCH. You specify explicitly what
>      you want to build, and the system lets you build that branch. This
>      means that you'll build the same content .. but maybe not that
>      branch.
> 
>    - Tree generation would have to dynamically create them, and then
>      remove the non-static branches when it completed. Completely doable,
>      but with a complexity cost. Complete tree generation and per-machine
>      building would now differ (although minor).
> 
>> would address the concerns of automated bulk validation while still
>> keeping the branching in the git tree to a minimum. Very few users will
>> be manipulating the git tree in the WORKDIR, and those that do are
>> expected to be advanced git users that can run:
>>
>> $ git cherry standard/base
>>
>> So why do I care about keeping the branch count down?
>>
>> o It helps make it explicit where we have deviated from mainline.
>>    - Clear visibility into this is one thing that users have
>>      complained about.
>>    - It maintains the 1:1 mapping between branches and actual source
>>      changes we've discussed.
> 
> There are far worse examples of non-obvious branches out there, but
> I don't disagree with the principle.
> 
>>
>> o It encourages people creating new BSPs to use an existing branch
>>    if at all possible.
>>    - We can encourage people to do this, but unless it is clear we
>>      are following this advice ourselves, others will not follow.
> 
> I don't really have big problem with people working on machine branches :)
> It's just a topic branch that holds work, it's like anything you do in
> a git repo .. do it on your own branch .. and then merge it back.
> 
> Anyway, I'm making changes to quite a few things right now in the tools,
> and we don't want to do this for 1.2, so let me think about this for a
> day and see if any other use cases break.
> 

Yes, let's revisit after 1.2 is out. Not need to muddy the waters with
it now.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] meta-crownbay: switch to linux-yocto-3.2 kernel

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 12-03-14 4:40 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>
>
> On 03/14/2012 01:25 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 12-03-14 10:45 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> On 03/13/2012 09:12 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>> On 12-03-14 12:05 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/13/2012 08:08 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 12-03-13 11:03 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 22:40 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>     wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 12:30 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I believe crownbay no longer requires special patches right? Can we just
>>>>>>>>>> use the standard/default/base branch here and squash the crownbay branch?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the moment it doesn't, and I'll probably submit a patch to do that
>>>>>>>>> for everything that it make sense for again after things are functional
>>>>>>>>> with the simple changes first.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's one catch with this. We currently have the graphics drivers staged as
>>>>>>>> topic branches so they can be in tree, and be kept pristine. The BSPs merge
>>>>>>>> the graphics topic branch they want, and we can leverage common commits
>>>>>>>> across all the users.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you drop the BSP branch, then the graphics changes need to be universally
>>>>>>>> safe for all similar BSPs, since that merge will now be to a shared branch.
>>>>>>>> That's normally fine, but for the case where we have multiple emgd versions,
>>>>>>>> it can break things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have complete flexibility to how we stage the branches, and how we
>>>>>>>> generate the content that is built, so this can change .. but that's
>>>>>>>> how we currently
>>>>>>>> have it setup. Those graphics merges are board specific changes and require
>>>>>>>> a branch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's fine, I'm perfectly happy to have per-BSP machine branches.
>>>>>>> They're cheap, and I don't really see the reason to be so parsimonious
>>>>>>> with them.  Also, they're always there, so if we do need to have a place
>>>>>>> to put the odd machine-specific patch now and then we don't have to add
>>>>>>> a new branch when we need to add those patches, or remove them once
>>>>>>> they're gone.  I guess the system was kind of designed for that (machine
>>>>>>> branches, even if empty)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly. We can collapse them where it makes sense, and keep there where
>>>>>> we need them. A machine branch is just that, a topic branch for development
>>>>>> and implicit documentation of a supported board. If a board may be extended
>>>>>> in the future .. a branch is nice to have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm in favour of keeping the count in control, but see no need to collapse
>>>>>> them down completely. That and I spent an hour trying to figure out
>>>>>> how to do some fancy merge logic and while it could be done, it just
>>>>>> makes things more complex. I'd prefer branches to overly complex
>>>>>> branch management logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed on the concept. What I'm not understanding is how is having to
>>>>> get yocto/emgd-1.10 to merge with standard/base any different than
>>>>> having to get it to merge with:
>>>>>
>>>>> standard/default/crownbay
>>>>> standard/default/common-pc-64/sugarbay
>>>>> standard/default/fri2
>>>>>
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> emgd isn't premerged into these machine branches if I understand the scc
>>>>> files correctly, so how is this any different? (I'm sure it is, I trust
>>>>> you here, I would just like to understand what I'm missing).
>>>>
>>>> When a tree is built from scratch (from the meta data + patch repo), or
>>>> when BSP validation runs across a tree. All BSPs are constructed in a
>>>> single tree. If you have merges into common branches, the third, fourth
>>>> or fifth one is going to eventually explode.
>>>
>>> It seems like the obvious answer here is to always create a machine
>>> branch during tree construction if one does not already exist. This
>>
>> That can be done .. and I've done it in the past, dynamic branches
>> are supported within the tools. But there are always issues:
>>
>>     - anything dynamic is never as smart as someone specifying a feature
>>       description and deciding whether or not they want a branch. I've
>>       nearly always regretted dynamically creating branches in the past.
>>
>>     - It's not just machine descriptions that trigger merges, any feature
>>       can have one if it has a topic branch that is being maintained in
>>       that manner. So I tread carefully here to not introduce special
>>       cases. We are talking about a known optional, board specific merge.
>>       A human can make that call pretty easily and specify that they
>>       want a branch.
>>
>>     - Some people just like to build the branch that they want to build.
>>       Since, for example, they might be pushing changes onto a non
>>       machine specific branch and expecting it to build .. and sometimes
>>       that branch isn't even the parent branch (i.e. some temp build). It
>>       also means that working in the build tree patches don't have a 1:1
>>       home in a source repository. But there are other things that make
>>       this a non-ideal workflow, so I don't really mind making it harder :)
>>
>>       That was the whole intent of KBRANCH. You specify explicitly what
>>       you want to build, and the system lets you build that branch. This
>>       means that you'll build the same content .. but maybe not that
>>       branch.
>>
>>     - Tree generation would have to dynamically create them, and then
>>       remove the non-static branches when it completed. Completely doable,
>>       but with a complexity cost. Complete tree generation and per-machine
>>       building would now differ (although minor).
>>
>>> would address the concerns of automated bulk validation while still
>>> keeping the branching in the git tree to a minimum. Very few users will
>>> be manipulating the git tree in the WORKDIR, and those that do are
>>> expected to be advanced git users that can run:
>>>
>>> $ git cherry standard/base
>>>
>>> So why do I care about keeping the branch count down?
>>>
>>> o It helps make it explicit where we have deviated from mainline.
>>>     - Clear visibility into this is one thing that users have
>>>       complained about.
>>>     - It maintains the 1:1 mapping between branches and actual source
>>>       changes we've discussed.
>>
>> There are far worse examples of non-obvious branches out there, but
>> I don't disagree with the principle.
>>
>>>
>>> o It encourages people creating new BSPs to use an existing branch
>>>     if at all possible.
>>>     - We can encourage people to do this, but unless it is clear we
>>>       are following this advice ourselves, others will not follow.
>>
>> I don't really have big problem with people working on machine branches :)
>> It's just a topic branch that holds work, it's like anything you do in
>> a git repo .. do it on your own branch .. and then merge it back.
>>
>> Anyway, I'm making changes to quite a few things right now in the tools,
>> and we don't want to do this for 1.2, so let me think about this for a
>> day and see if any other use cases break.
>>
>
> Yes, let's revisit after 1.2 is out. Not need to muddy the waters with
> it now.

+1 .. and I forgot to type in my last email, that all of the points I
mention are minor, so really, with the right tweak .. I think this is
a fine idea.

Cheers,

Bruce

>