On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 12:51 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 11:00:06PM +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote: > > As I explained earlier in my reply to Lennart, the DENX tree is not a > > pre-requisite for having the pipeline run on each and every hw platform, > > but this is still the case for some, because they are not > > stable/complete/good enough in mainline yet. The reason to stick with it > > stems from this fact. > > > > What has to be reassessed, is the number of platforms Xenomai supports > > that still need DENX bits today; if only a few of them remain in this > > category, then it's probably sound to start maintaining the pipeline > > support for them in a separate tree, rebasing I-pipe mainline over Linux > > mainline for ppc as well. I have no issue with that. > > Sounds great to me. > > > What we may be aiming at, if workable, is something like: > > > > ipipe-*-mainline > > ipipe-*-amcc > > ipipe-*-512x > > > > Maybe one for the PA6T as well, if we want to keep supporting the old A2 > > board rev. I'm unsure right now, since B0 is fine in mainline already. > > > > A mainline pipeline branch for everything that directly works over > > mainline, and platform-specific branches for those that do not. Those > > special branches would then disappear as soon as mainline is fine for > > the platforms they host as well. > > I also noticed on Friday that applying both x86 and powerpc ipipe > patches to one kernel tree is a bit problematic. Obviously both > include the noarch section, but dealing with that is simple. > The only actual problem that had to be solved is that both xenomai > architectures try to include arch/<archname>/xenomai/Kconfig which > conflict with each other. Merging the x86 and powerpc Kconfig bits > together in one file isn't hard and allows both to work with a single > included file. > > The reason I want this is that I very much intend to have a single 2.6.32 > kernel source build with the same patches on both our x86 based embedded > systems and our powerpc based embedded systems. > > Is there any interest in getting such cleanup done to make the code > just apply all together? If so I will try to finish adding the other > architectures together too. >
If you can make this work cleanly, while keeping the ability to separate arch-dep sections in different patches, I'm a taker. Even if having separate per-architecture patches is better for decoupling their release cycle (issuing a jumbo patch each time minor updates appear only in a single arch-dep section is not suitable), we could also provide an integrated patch by combining all per-arch bits and a single no-arch section. -- Philippe. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
