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.. 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