> -----Original Message----- > From: Zanussi, Tom > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 2:20 PM > To: Kamble, Nitin A > Cc: Darren Hart; meta-intel@yoctoproject.org; Ong, Boon Leong; Haw, Foo > Chien > Subject: Re: [meta-intel] [PATCH] xserver-xf86-config: remove redundant > files, clean up broken ones > > On Fri, 2013-09-20 at 16:14 -0500, Kamble, Nitin A wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: meta-intel-boun...@yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-intel- > > > boun...@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Darren Hart > > > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 2:11 PM > > > To: Zanussi, Tom > > > Cc: meta-intel@yoctoproject.org; Ong, Boon Leong; Haw, Foo Chien > > > Subject: Re: [meta-intel] [PATCH] xserver-xf86-config: remove > > > redundant files, clean up broken ones > > > > > > On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 09:35 -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 00:43 +0100, Burton, Ross wrote: > > > > > On 19 September 2013 00:31, Darren Hart <dvh...@linux.intel.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 23:23 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: > > > > > >> Most BSPs appear to be derived from what appears to be a > > > > > >> stale copy of the atom-pc xorg.conf which was either > > > > > >> repeating defaults (the screen configuration), pointlessly > > > > > >> hard-coding (specifying video driver when X can auto-probe), > > > > > >> or actively harmful (disabling hotplugged input devices). > > > > > >> Delete the files which can be removed, and remove the bad > > > > > >> hotplug disabling options from the > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been something I've wanted to see improved for a long > time. > > > > > > Typically we do changes like with one patch per BSP to help > > > > > > keep things a bit more flexible in the face of regressions. > > > > > > > > > > I started doing that but then got rapidly bored with copy-paste... > > > > > I can split it up though. > > > > > > > > > > > Which of these BSPs did you test and verify work after this patch? > > > > > > > > > > Two classes of patches: delete the file and trim the file. > > > > > > > > > > Where xorg.conf was deleted the only hardware I can (and did) > > > > > test it on was NUC. I guess a representative sample of vesa and > > > > > mga hardware should be verified to still boot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I pulled in the nuc changes, but will wait for the individual BSP > > > > owners to ack the changes for their BSPs before pulling in the others. > > > > > > > > > One instance of the trim patch was tested by Saul on his Minnow > > > > > (whose report of a broken touchscreen prompted this series) and > > > > > oe-core has had the same change for atom-pc/genericx86 for some > > > > > time > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And of course Darren will need to pull in the minnow changes. > > > > > > With the minnow tested now tested, I'm happy to see FRI2, SYS940x, > > > and Crownbay go in. In fact, that's enough I think for the series to > > > go. Any other objections? > > > > Darren, Ross, > > How are you testing? Just deleting file on the target? > > > > I am finding the commit is causing build failure for NUC. > > > > Hmm, I did a nuc build before pulling it in and didn't see any problems here..
Then failure I am seeing must be due to my additional layer, looking for the xorg.conf file. Sorry about the noise. Thanks, Nitin > > Tom > > > Nitin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Darren Hart > > > Intel Open Source Technology Center > > > Yocto Project - Linux Kernel > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > meta-intel mailing list > > > meta-intel@yoctoproject.org > > > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-intel > _______________________________________________ meta-intel mailing list meta-intel@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-intel