[linux-yocto] [PATCH 1/1] [KERNEL] meta: Crystal Forest Machine Created.

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 12-08-08 02:11 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>
>
> On 08/08/2012 10:56 AM, kishore.k.bodke at intel.com wrote:
>> From: Kishore Bodke<kishore.k.bodke at intel.com>
>>
>
>> +++ b/meta/cfg/kernel-cache/bsp/crystalforest/crystalforest.scc
>> @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
>> +kconf hardware crystalforest.cfg
>> +
>> +include cfg/x86_64.scc
>> +include cfg/8250.scc
>> +
>> +include features/power/intel.scc
>> +
>> +#These are required features for Intel DPDK Support
>> +include features/uio/uio.scc
>> +include features/hugetlb/hugetlb.scc
>> +include features/ixgbe/ixgbe.scc
>> +include features/igb/igb.scc
>> +
>> +
>> +include features/latencytop/latencytop.scc
>> +include features/profiling/profiling.scc
>> +include features/usb/xhci-hcd.scc
>> +include features/usb/ehci-hcd.scc
>> +include features/usb/ohci-hcd.scc
>> +include cfg/usb-mass-storage.scc
>> +include cfg/boot-live.scc
>>
>
> These last two should be in the standard and preempt-rt scc files and
> not in the base crystalforest.scc. The reason being, the kernel type
> should define policy - and whether or not we support mass storage and
> live boot is a matter of policy, not hardware enablement. The tiny
> kernel should not be required to pull in usb mass storage, fat support,
> etc to boot this machine.

(moving to linux-yocto).

Agreed on this, that the policy should be out of the BSPs.

There are other fragments to move around as well, which I'm currently
looking at.

Here's the question, do we want this for all boards, all arches, or do
we want some sort of intermediate x86/intel feature that defines this
policy, and the BSPs include that ?

Either way works, and I'm inclined to move this to standard/rt as well,
but I wanted to gather some other opinions as well.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> Thanks,
>