[LEDE-DEV] merging the layerscape target

[Y.T. Jiang]

Hi Rafał,

Thank you for the detailed comment!

Update status:
prefixed with ">"			--done
Copyright				--done
make target/linux/refresh V=s		--done
Patches prefix with 1xxx,2xxx...refer target/linux/generic/PATCHES			--done
using	DEVICE_TITLE DEVICE_PACKAGES...refer target/linux/bcm53xx/image/Makefile	--ongoing

After building and features validate, I will submit a new version patch.


Thanks & Best Regards
Jiang Yutang

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rafał Miłecki [mailto:zajec5 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 7:55 PM
> To: Y.T. Jiang
> Cc: John Crispin; LEDE Development List
> Subject: Re: [LEDE-DEV] merging the layerscape target
> 
> On 19 September 2016 at 12:36, Y.T. Jiang <yutang.jiang at nxp.com> wrote:
> > Thank you for your review and suggestion.
> 
> Sure. One more note: please take a look at your mailer configuration.
> It should keep all quotes prefixed with "> " to keep discussion clear.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_quoting
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rafał Miłecki [mailto:zajec5 at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 4:01 PM
> > To: John Crispin
> > Cc: LEDE Development List; Y.T. Jiang
> > Subject: Re: [LEDE-DEV] merging the layerscape target
> >
> > On 18 September 2016 at 14:24, John Crispin <john at phrozen.org> wrote:
> >> i have just spent some time reviewing the layerscape PR [1] and
> >> started a full build of it. its starting to look good and i cannot
> >> see any blockers. if anyone has any hold on this please let me know
> >> in the next couple of days. if i dont get any vetos i will merge it.
> >
> > I can see following Copyright line over and over:
> > Copyright (C) 2016 OpenWrt.org
> > Yutang: did you really sign a contract with OpenWrt that included
> passing your copyrights to the OpenWrt project? If not, you should just
> keep Copyrights assigned to yourself.
> > I really would like assigning copyrights to projects where it doesn't
> apply.
> > [I do not sign a contract with OpenWrt indeed. I refer to some others
> > target while developing/backporting layerscape, I find almost of
> > targets included OpenWrt.org Copyright, so I also put it in my code
> > files. Now should I replace " Copyright (C) 2016 OpenWrt.org" with "
> > Copyright (C) 2016 Jiang Yutang <yutang.jiang at nxp.com>" ? or retain
> > the both copyright: "Copyright (C) LEDE project, Jiang Yutang
> > <yutang.jiang at nxp.com>" ?]
> 
> You're correct, current sources are messy about this. I'm trying to stop
> adding mode incorrectly copyrighted code.
> 
> You should only have something like:
> Copyright (C) 2016 Jiang Yutang <yutang.jiang at nxp.com> for the code you
> have written.
> 
> 
> > What about using some generic profile only and then using DEVICE_TITLE
> DEVICE_PACKAGES to specify modules that should be included on rootfs?
> > [I will try to use the two variables.]
> 
> Thanks! This will allow building images for customized boards with a
> single "make" call. It's part of recently introduced
> TARGET_PER_DEVICE_ROOTFS system. You may take a look at
> target/linux/bcm53xx/image/Makefile as an example. There is only 1
> subtarget, but it should give you a hint anyway.
> 
> 
> > Would that be possible to split patches into accepted ones (backports)
> and LEDE-specific ones?
> > [The kernel patches: dpaa/qbman/fman/etc. it is really too big and
> > interference review LEDE-specially code. I will split those kernel
> > patches in folder patches-4.4 as the second, and keep the rest as fist
> > LEDE-specific,  what do you think about it?]
> 
> For generic patches we have a following guide:
> target/linux/generic/PATCHES
> 
> You may try to follow this, if possible. E.g. you could use 0xxx prefix
> for upstream accepted patches and some other prefix 1xxx, 2xxx, or
> whatever applicable for other ones.
> 
> It isn't a strict rule for targets, but it should make your target easier
> to maintain I believe.
> 
> 
> > Please refresh all target patches, right now I can see they contain all
> these things like:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c index
> > 4cb98aa..a8a97bd 100644
> > 1.7.9.5
> > [I found it have conflicts in current kernel version with two
> > patches(arm64/mm related, 0060 and 0061) while backporting the
> > dpaa/qbman/fman driver, but I'm unacquainted with both mm and dpaa,
> > our dpaa team are engaged in do upstream work and can't help me. So I
> > revert the two patch to bypass this issue temporary, I would like to
> > wait for more leisure time then to thorough investigate and solve it.]
> 
> I think you misunderstood me. I don't have anything against your patches,
> just the format. Please call make target/linux/refresh V=s and that will
> convert all your patches to the expected format :)
> 
> --
> Rafał