From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TgIVh-00032o-A7 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 18:11:49 +0100 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Dec 2012 08:56:29 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,223,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="252441814" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.13.91]) ([10.255.13.91]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Dec 2012 08:57:14 -0800 Message-ID: <1354726634.1715.30.camel@empanada> From: Tom Zanussi To: Richard Purdie Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 10:57:14 -0600 In-Reply-To: <1354724873.25268.119.camel@ted> References: <1354723571.1715.17.camel@empanada> <1354724873.25268.119.camel@ted> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.1 (3.4.1-2.fc17) Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: dvhart@linux.intel.com, linux-yocto@yoctoproject.org, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] linux-yocto: consolidated pull request X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 17:11:49 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 16:27 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 10:06 -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 15:48 +0000, Burton, Ross wrote: > > > On 21 November 2012 21:32, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > > > > atom-pc should probably be using the 3.4 kernel, but that's a > > > > question for Darren/Tom/Nitin (so I've added them to the cc), since > > > > there may be a reason (with respect to graphics) as to why it is on > > > > 3.0. > > > > > > Ping Darren/Tom/Nitin. > > > > > > atom-pc is certainly lagging behind by still being on 3.0, and I can't > > > see any reason why we'd want to stick with 3.0 for graphics. In fact > > > as the most common graphics driver used on atom-pc is a i965 we want a > > > modern kernel as that is where the development is. > > > > > > > I don't know of any technical reason for it to still be at 3.0. > > > > Until recently all of the 'core machines' were at 3.0 and probably the > > assumption was that whoever upgraded those in the past would also be > > upgrading atom-pc - has that changed?. > > > > So who does own the core machines and if that doesn't cover atom-pc, > > then who owns that? > > As I understood it, WR owns the non-IA core machines, you (as in the > Intel team) own the IA ones, namely atom-pc. > OK, yeah, I anyway had just assumed it was WR for the core machines: commit f08b8c96402cd2b1e939f1babbc002d630fbf274 Author: Bruce Ashfield Date: Fri Aug 19 00:37:08 2011 -0400 meta-yocto: atom-pc/mpc8315e-rdb change preferred version to 3.0 Updating two more yocto hardware reference platforms to use the 3.0 kernel by default. But I see that Darren had done the previous upgrade: commit 622fb696a6fc9eab991a5f412eb28e2ff949a32b Author: Darren Hart Date: Fri May 6 12:12:50 2011 -0700 atom-pc: use linux-yocto (2.6.37) kernel Tested boot, network, sato desktop, amixer, and audio playback on a Toshiba NB305 netbook. And it does make sense for Intel to own the atom-pc, it's just never been clearly stated unless I missed the discussion. Tom > Cheers, > > Richard >