[linux-yocto] Rename branch standard/arm-versatile-926ejs to standard/qemuarm

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Elvis Dowson <elvis.dowson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 1, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield at windriver.com> wrote:
>
>> On 13-08-31 2:46 PM, Elvis Dowson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>       In preparation for adding additional qemuarm machine configurations to the linux-yocto kernels, can we rename the existing standard/arm-versatile-926ejs branch to standard/qemuarm?
>>>
>>
>> As I've mentioned before, there's absolutely no reason to do this,
>> the branch name represents the machine support for the versatile
>> and qemuarm re-uses it. So it can stay as is.
>
> If we add QEMU support for newer ARM architectures, like Cortex A8, A9 and A15, it's a bit confusing, and not immediately obvious if one should using a kernel branch intended for an old ARM v5 instruction set branch.
>
> At least for me, the first time I saw it, my first reaction was "this must be old and incompatible".

Understandable.

>
> Changing it to a generic form such as standard/qemuarm, like it's done for the other architectures, e.g. standard/qemuppc, gives a better indication that it can potentially support  a set of generic  arm architectures, purely from a naming perspective.

qemux86 builds and boots from standard/common-pc
qemumips builds and boots from standard/mti-malta32
qemumips64 builds and boots from standard/mti-malta64

qemuppc builds from a specially named branch, since there is no real hardware
that backs it.

Don't get me wrong, we can change it, but I won't be changing it at
this point in
the yocto dev cycle, and the real point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't
matter.

In fact, Darren and I have been trying to remove board branches when possible
and just build and boot boards from standard/base. The only time we really need
board branches is when they make changes that are unsafe for other boards
and platforms .. and we really do try to limit that.

So my suggestion would be that we either re-use the arm-versatile branch for
now, or use standard/base, since these emulated platforms shouldn't be
breaking other boards.

>
> I would strive for branch naming consistency, for the qemu architectures.
>
>>
>>> Also, can we merge all the changes from the standard/base branch into this branch?
>>
>> This happens for every single branch in the repository.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm preparing a set of patches for qemuarma9 support for linux-yocto-3.10, and would like the qemuarm branch updated, before releasing the patches, if possible.
>>
>> It's full up to date .. at all times :)
>
> Ok, I've just built and tested a qemuarma9 machine configuration, with a separate defconfig, shall I send across the patches?

kernel patches, definitely, send them here.

If you are talking about patches to runqemu, and related
infrastructure, to start
the boot, then send them to oe-core, and chances are they won't be accepted at
this point in the dev cycle.

If you have a machine.conf and board layer, then we need to find it a home while
we figure out how to get the support into core. But I'd definitely
like to see those
changes as well, even if they are from a github or other externally
hosted layer.

As for the configuration, you can send it along as a defconfig, but
I'll need to factor
it out into a board fragment, since we  don't maintain full defconfigs
for boards that
boot from linux-yocto.

I can demonstrate how to factor it down to a fragment, if you haven't
already done
it.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> Elvis Dowson
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-yocto mailing list
> linux-yocto at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/linux-yocto



-- 
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end"