From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.chez-thomas.org (mail.mlbassoc.com [65.100.170.105]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 621956DB40 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:31:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 1998) id BC786F811F7; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:31:32 -0600 (MDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on hermes.chez-thomas.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from [192.168.1.114] (zeus [192.168.1.114]) by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D76F811E4; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:31:31 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <532A36F3.2090800@mlbassoc.com> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:31:47 -0600 From: Gary Thomas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org References: <1395143773-26375-1-git-send-email-Chase.Maupin@ti.com> <23BFBADE-120F-4DBC-AABF-A9F802B8222C@dominion.thruhere.net> <1395147366.3808.70.camel@ted> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] linaro-pm-qa-utils: Add power management test utils X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:31:34 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2014-03-19 16:38, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Richard Purdie > wrote: >> On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 13:29 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: >>> Op 18 mrt. 2014, om 12:56 heeft Chase Maupin het volgende geschreven: >>> >>>> * The power management test utilities from Linaro can be used >>>> to test multiple PM features such as cpufreq, cpuidle, thermal >>>> control and suspend operations. >>>> * These utilities are not platform specific and can be used by >>>> a broader base of users. >>> >>> PN should me 'pm-qa' or 'pm-qa-utils'. >> >> Agreed. >> >>> And it would fit better in meta-oe since it's not 'core' enough for oe-core. >> >> I'm open to discussion on that. Certainly if there is just one user, >> meta-oe would be appropriate. If these are generically useful and the >> plan is we integrate these into the larger automated test picture, >> oe-core may make sense. >> >> So if there a bigger picture plan here? Would these make sense in the >> broader picture? > > I prefer if this is done in meta-oe first and we move to oe-core when > needed. For now it is at very beginning so we still does not know what > will be the real final picture of t. > What are you afraid of? Putting this in OE-core _may_ make sense if it serves a larger community, but having it there will not be destabilizing, so why not? -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------