Hi Darren, I would take in your suggestion. However, this GPIO config would be Baytrail specific config and we will have PWM config in future release which also Baytrail specific.
So, I would propose that we will put all these baytrail specific configs in linux-yocto-3.8/meta/cfg/kernel-cache/features/embedded-io-byt/. So you have any comment on this? As for switching to reuse the common-pc/base and common-pc-64/base branches, Yes, we can switch to that branch. Thanks. > -----Original Message----- > From: Darren Hart [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 26 September, 2013 4:59 AM > To: Chang, Rebecca Swee Fun > Cc: Development list for the linux-yocto*.git Linux kernel repositories > Subject: Re: [linux-yocto] [PATCH 1/1] meta: add baytrail scc & config files > > On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 03:23 +0000, Chang, Rebecca Swee Fun wrote: > > Hi Darren, > > > > Please see my replies below. > > > > Rebecca - great, this all looks good to me. Just one comment: > > > > > > > > > + > > > > +CONFIG_GPIOLIB=y > > > > +CONFIG_GPIO_BYT=y > > > > +CONFIG_GPIO_BYT_DEVICE=y > > > > + > > > > > > > > > GPIO_BYT* configs do not exist in the sources nor do they exist in > > > the upstream kernel. > > > > We will have internal discussion regarding this. > > For Darren, please refer to Ong Boon Leong's email reply in the internal > review email thread. He will comment on this. > > > > So after reading BL's email and learning a bit more about the two types of > device enumeration and the IVI dependence on the PCI-variant, we can > make this work. > > Given that these config options require a set of out-of-tree drivers, my > recommendation would be to treat these as we do the emgd driver. They > can go in a feature branch and have a feature config fragment associated > with them which merges in that branch when included in the machine scc. > > linux-yocto-3.8/meta/cfg/kernel-cache/features/drm-emgd [meta] $ cat > drm-emgd-1.18.scc kconf hardware drm-emgd.cfg merge emgd-1.18 > > With this in place, you will not need a dedicated machine branch for the > baytrail and can reuse the common-pc/base and common-pc-64/base > branches, reducing the branch maintenance imposed on linux-yocto and > working toward consolidating IA BSPs to fewer branches. > > Do you have any concerns with being able to move forward in a timely > manner with this approach? It involves a bit of refactoring, but nothing > major, > and I can help out if any aspect of it is new or unclear. > > -- > Darren Hart > Intel Open Source Technology Center > Yocto Project - Linux Kernel > _______________________________________________ linux-yocto mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/linux-yocto
