Patchwork [0/4] linux-yocto: consolidated pull request

login
register
mail settings
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/kernel

Comments

Bruce Ashfield - Nov. 21, 2012, 9:32 p.m.
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(-)
Ross Burton - Dec. 5, 2012, 3:48 p.m.
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
Tom Zanussi - Dec. 5, 2012, 4:06 p.m.
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
Richard Purdie - Dec. 5, 2012, 4:27 p.m.
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
Darren Hart - Dec. 5, 2012, 4:51 p.m.
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.
Tom Zanussi - Dec. 5, 2012, 4:57 p.m.
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
>