Hi Rafał, Thank you for the detailed comment!
Update status: prefixed with ">" --done Copyright --done make target/linux/refresh V=s --done Patches prefix with 1xxx,2xxx...refer target/linux/generic/PATCHES --done using DEVICE_TITLE DEVICE_PACKAGES...refer target/linux/bcm53xx/image/Makefile --ongoing After building and features validate, I will submit a new version patch. Thanks & Best Regards Jiang Yutang > -----Original Message----- > From: Rafał Miłecki [mailto:zaj...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 7:55 PM > To: Y.T. Jiang > Cc: John Crispin; LEDE Development List > Subject: Re: [LEDE-DEV] merging the layerscape target > > On 19 September 2016 at 12:36, Y.T. Jiang <yutang.ji...@nxp.com> wrote: > > Thank you for your review and suggestion. > > Sure. One more note: please take a look at your mailer configuration. > It should keep all quotes prefixed with "> " to keep discussion clear. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_quoting > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rafał Miłecki [mailto:zaj...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 4:01 PM > > To: John Crispin > > Cc: LEDE Development List; Y.T. Jiang > > Subject: Re: [LEDE-DEV] merging the layerscape target > > > > On 18 September 2016 at 14:24, John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> wrote: > >> i have just spent some time reviewing the layerscape PR  and > >> started a full build of it. its starting to look good and i cannot > >> see any blockers. if anyone has any hold on this please let me know > >> in the next couple of days. if i dont get any vetos i will merge it. > > > > I can see following Copyright line over and over: > > Copyright (C) 2016 OpenWrt.org > > Yutang: did you really sign a contract with OpenWrt that included > passing your copyrights to the OpenWrt project? If not, you should just > keep Copyrights assigned to yourself. > > I really would like assigning copyrights to projects where it doesn't > apply. > > [I do not sign a contract with OpenWrt indeed. I refer to some others > > target while developing/backporting layerscape, I find almost of > > targets included OpenWrt.org Copyright, so I also put it in my code > > files. Now should I replace " Copyright (C) 2016 OpenWrt.org" with " > > Copyright (C) 2016 Jiang Yutang <yutang.ji...@nxp.com>" ? or retain > > the both copyright: "Copyright (C) LEDE project, Jiang Yutang > > <yutang.ji...@nxp.com>" ?] > > You're correct, current sources are messy about this. I'm trying to stop > adding mode incorrectly copyrighted code. > > You should only have something like: > Copyright (C) 2016 Jiang Yutang <yutang.ji...@nxp.com> for the code you > have written. > > > > What about using some generic profile only and then using DEVICE_TITLE > DEVICE_PACKAGES to specify modules that should be included on rootfs? > > [I will try to use the two variables.] > > Thanks! This will allow building images for customized boards with a > single "make" call. It's part of recently introduced > TARGET_PER_DEVICE_ROOTFS system. You may take a look at > target/linux/bcm53xx/image/Makefile as an example. There is only 1 > subtarget, but it should give you a hint anyway. > > > > Would that be possible to split patches into accepted ones (backports) > and LEDE-specific ones? > > [The kernel patches: dpaa/qbman/fman/etc. it is really too big and > > interference review LEDE-specially code. I will split those kernel > > patches in folder patches-4.4 as the second, and keep the rest as fist > > LEDE-specific, what do you think about it?] > > For generic patches we have a following guide: > target/linux/generic/PATCHES > > You may try to follow this, if possible. E.g. you could use 0xxx prefix > for upstream accepted patches and some other prefix 1xxx, 2xxx, or > whatever applicable for other ones. > > It isn't a strict rule for targets, but it should make your target easier > to maintain I believe. > > > > Please refresh all target patches, right now I can see they contain all > these things like: > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c index > > 4cb98aa..a8a97bd 100644 > > 184.108.40.206 > > [I found it have conflicts in current kernel version with two > > patches(arm64/mm related, 0060 and 0061) while backporting the > > dpaa/qbman/fman driver, but I'm unacquainted with both mm and dpaa, > > our dpaa team are engaged in do upstream work and can't help me. So I > > revert the two patch to bypass this issue temporary, I would like to > > wait for more leisure time then to thorough investigate and solve it.] > > I think you misunderstood me. I don't have anything against your patches, > just the format. Please call make target/linux/refresh V=s and that will > convert all your patches to the expected format :) > > -- > Rafał _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Ledefirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev