| Submitter | Bruce Ashfield |
|---|---|
| Date | Nov. 21, 2012, 9:32 p.m. |
| Message ID | <cover.1353532567.git.bruce.ashfield@windriver.com> |
| Download | mbox |
| Permalink | /patch/39439/ |
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Pull-request
git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib zedd/kernelComments
On 21 November 2012 21:32, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com> wrote: > atom-pc should probably be using the 3.4 kernel, but that's a > question for Darren/Tom/Nitin (so I've added them to the cc), since > there may be a reason (with respect to graphics) as to why it is on > 3.0. Ping Darren/Tom/Nitin. atom-pc is certainly lagging behind by still being on 3.0, and I can't see any reason why we'd want to stick with 3.0 for graphics. In fact as the most common graphics driver used on atom-pc is a i965 we want a modern kernel as that is where the development is. (this may explain why my GPU crashes when I stress it under Yocto) Ross
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 15:48 +0000, Burton, Ross wrote: > On 21 November 2012 21:32, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com> wrote: > > atom-pc should probably be using the 3.4 kernel, but that's a > > question for Darren/Tom/Nitin (so I've added them to the cc), since > > there may be a reason (with respect to graphics) as to why it is on > > 3.0. > > Ping Darren/Tom/Nitin. > > atom-pc is certainly lagging behind by still being on 3.0, and I can't > see any reason why we'd want to stick with 3.0 for graphics. In fact > as the most common graphics driver used on atom-pc is a i965 we want a > modern kernel as that is where the development is. > I don't know of any technical reason for it to still be at 3.0. Until recently all of the 'core machines' were at 3.0 and probably the assumption was that whoever upgraded those in the past would also be upgrading atom-pc - has that changed?. So who does own the core machines and if that doesn't cover atom-pc, then who owns that? Tom > (this may explain why my GPU crashes when I stress it under Yocto) > > Ross > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 10:06 -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote: > On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 15:48 +0000, Burton, Ross wrote: > > On 21 November 2012 21:32, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com> wrote: > > > atom-pc should probably be using the 3.4 kernel, but that's a > > > question for Darren/Tom/Nitin (so I've added them to the cc), since > > > there may be a reason (with respect to graphics) as to why it is on > > > 3.0. > > > > Ping Darren/Tom/Nitin. > > > > atom-pc is certainly lagging behind by still being on 3.0, and I can't > > see any reason why we'd want to stick with 3.0 for graphics. In fact > > as the most common graphics driver used on atom-pc is a i965 we want a > > modern kernel as that is where the development is. > > > > I don't know of any technical reason for it to still be at 3.0. > > Until recently all of the 'core machines' were at 3.0 and probably the > assumption was that whoever upgraded those in the past would also be > upgrading atom-pc - has that changed?. > > So who does own the core machines and if that doesn't cover atom-pc, > then who owns that? As I understood it, WR owns the non-IA core machines, you (as in the Intel team) own the IA ones, namely atom-pc. Cheers, Richard
On 12/05/2012 08:27 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 10:06 -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote: >> On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 15:48 +0000, Burton, Ross wrote: >>> On 21 November 2012 21:32, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com> wrote: >>>> atom-pc should probably be using the 3.4 kernel, but that's a >>>> question for Darren/Tom/Nitin (so I've added them to the cc), since >>>> there may be a reason (with respect to graphics) as to why it is on >>>> 3.0. >>> >>> Ping Darren/Tom/Nitin. >>> >>> atom-pc is certainly lagging behind by still being on 3.0, and I can't >>> see any reason why we'd want to stick with 3.0 for graphics. In fact >>> as the most common graphics driver used on atom-pc is a i965 we want a >>> modern kernel as that is where the development is. >>> >> >> I don't know of any technical reason for it to still be at 3.0. >> >> Until recently all of the 'core machines' were at 3.0 and probably the >> assumption was that whoever upgraded those in the past would also be >> upgrading atom-pc - has that changed?. >> >> So who does own the core machines and if that doesn't cover atom-pc, >> then who owns that? > > As I understood it, WR owns the non-IA core machines, you (as in the > Intel team) own the IA ones, namely atom-pc. Agreed, it should be updated. Tom, Nitin, and I will discuss and select an owner.
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 16:27 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 10:06 -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 15:48 +0000, Burton, Ross wrote: > > > On 21 November 2012 21:32, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com> wrote: > > > > atom-pc should probably be using the 3.4 kernel, but that's a > > > > question for Darren/Tom/Nitin (so I've added them to the cc), since > > > > there may be a reason (with respect to graphics) as to why it is on > > > > 3.0. > > > > > > Ping Darren/Tom/Nitin. > > > > > > atom-pc is certainly lagging behind by still being on 3.0, and I can't > > > see any reason why we'd want to stick with 3.0 for graphics. In fact > > > as the most common graphics driver used on atom-pc is a i965 we want a > > > modern kernel as that is where the development is. > > > > > > > I don't know of any technical reason for it to still be at 3.0. > > > > Until recently all of the 'core machines' were at 3.0 and probably the > > assumption was that whoever upgraded those in the past would also be > > upgrading atom-pc - has that changed?. > > > > So who does own the core machines and if that doesn't cover atom-pc, > > then who owns that? > > As I understood it, WR owns the non-IA core machines, you (as in the > Intel team) own the IA ones, namely atom-pc. > OK, yeah, I anyway had just assumed it was WR for the core machines: commit f08b8c96402cd2b1e939f1babbc002d630fbf274 Author: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com> Date: Fri Aug 19 00:37:08 2011 -0400 meta-yocto: atom-pc/mpc8315e-rdb change preferred version to 3.0 Updating two more yocto hardware reference platforms to use the 3.0 kernel by default. But I see that Darren had done the previous upgrade: commit 622fb696a6fc9eab991a5f412eb28e2ff949a32b Author: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri May 6 12:12:50 2011 -0700 atom-pc: use linux-yocto (2.6.37) kernel Tested boot, network, sato desktop, amixer, and audio playback on a Toshiba NB305 netbook. And it does make sense for Intel to own the atom-pc, it's just never been clearly stated unless I missed the discussion. Tom > Cheers, > > Richard >
Richard/Saul, Here's another small queue of patches, some minor updates to kernel configs and fixes for YOCTO #3422 and YOCTO #3473. patch 1/4 [linux-yocto/3.0: fix virtio configuration typo] fixes a build error atom-pc build in master by fixing the kernel fragment. atom-pc should probably be using the 3.4 kernel, but that's a question for Darren/Tom/Nitin (so I've added them to the cc), since there may be a reason (with respect to graphics) as to why it is on 3.0. While fixing that build error, I also modified the kern tools to clearly report the error and avoid needing to go to the logs for diagnosis, that's patch 4/4 [kern-tools: report missing config fragments by name]. The other change is a comment fixup for YOCTO #3422, just to make it clear if meta branches do or do not need to exist. And finally, Tom noticed that a bad merge dropped some uprobes configuration and sent a fixup patch. cc: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com> cc: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> cc: Nitin Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com> Cheers, Bruce The following changes since commit 1b4dcf10b0fe9b4e95ca84f32de0c7dcfee2b729: ldconfig/cdrtools/icecc-create-env/linuxdoc-tools/python: Set FILESPATH to find -native files (2012-11-21 16:56:04 +0000) are available in the git repository at: git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib zedd/kernel http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=zedd/kernel Bruce Ashfield (4): linux-yocto/3.0: fix virtio configuration typo linux-yocto/3.4: uprobes: reinstate config options for 'uprobe' feature kernel-yocto: clarify KMETA branch comments kern-tools: report missing config fragments by name meta/classes/kernel-yocto.bbclass | 5 +++-- meta/recipes-kernel/kern-tools/kern-tools-native_git.bb | 2 +- meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.4.bb | 2 +- meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-tiny_3.4.bb | 2 +- meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.0.bb | 2 +- meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.4.bb | 2 +- 6 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)