From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id C84D1E0097D; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 08:27:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (picmaster[at]mail.bg) * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [193.201.172.118 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature Received: from mx2.mail.bg (mx2.mail.bg [193.201.172.118]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7035BE00960 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 08:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.62] (unknown [93.152.143.60]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.mail.bg (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CCE8460027F4; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:27:18 +0300 (EEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=mail.bg; s=default; t=1430148438; bh=cmHkVOIXk3zS5vdkh+kuc/ju7fdMVBe1MCDuixHjGZI=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=d2CvXxlMtU60QtuNWuM6H9SwvTrjB8tb+kKcLBGlT0bLb9YesJzDG/xGhnSR37TPq HaLmARPdYfLi1nD14sO0DgwtNkwR0XpYy9O4i2p+z1HfH1bZ1GVor6HLd1/s70fc9t BcgRqTETihg/DCCNfDXXvoHmdEKkszcoJyuKXh8E= Message-ID: <553E5556.9070406@mail.bg> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:27:18 +0300 From: Nikolay Dimitrov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Otavio Salvador References: <1430109302-25721-1-git-send-email-picmaster@mail.bg> In-Reply-To: Cc: "meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: [meta-fsl-arm-extra][PATCH 1/2] linux-riotboard: Add separate riotboard kernel recipe X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:27:23 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Otavio, On 04/27/2015 02:40 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Hello Nikolay, > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Nikolay Dimitrov wrote: >> Add dedicated RIoTboard kernel recipe for easier maintenance and patch >> cherry-picking. >> >> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Dimitrov > > I want to check with you if you really want to have a dedicated > recipe. For bugfixes (as now) you can use a bbappend as a temporary > solution and, at end of the day, easy to remove once this is fixed in > the kernel. > > Please let me know your thoughts... Do you mean something like this (bbappend in meta-fsl-arm-extra)? diff --git a/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-fslc_4.0.bbappend b/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-fslc_4.0.bbappend new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7a4e72 --- /dev/null +++ b/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-fslc_4.0.bbappend @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +FILESEXTRAPATHS_append := ":${THISDIR}/${PN}" + +SRC_URI_imx6dl-riotboard = "file://riotboard-specific.patch" Well, imho the difference between bbappending and having a separate recipe is that the bbappending mechanism is retro-reactive - I can bbappend patches to linux-fslc but in the meantime the board support will be broken. Maintaining a separate kernel recipe for riotboard is a proactive way, imho. When linux-fslc updates are happening, they won't immediately break the riotboard, and after I test the updates I can update SRC_REV to point it to a specific working commit, or as in my case point SRC_REV to the latest commit and revert just one specific patch. The advantage is that all the time the board support will be working. This was my motivation for the patch. Please tell me if there are any drawback of having a separate board kernel recipe. Regards, Nikolay