More useful generic-x86 machine
Hi,
My current test hardware for Yocto work is a Celeron-class Sandy Bridge-based micro PC. As is to be expected for a machine like this, it's got modern Intel graphics and wireless. Neither of which are supported by atom-pc, as it's nominally a "generic netbook" image.
Let's face it -- it's a really bad generic netbook image, it's really a Asus eeePC701-and-similar image. Specifically, only one wifi driver, only i915 GPU driver, and so on.
I'm not arguing for a true generic kernel such as Fedora maintains which boots on almost everything, just a new machine with more flexibility. Including both i915 and i965 GPU drivers covers everything Intel-driven from the earliest netbook to the latest Ivy Bridge[1]. Including the iwl wifi drivers at least covers a good proportion of devices out there. There are probably a few more drivers that are common and give big gains in support. Not exactly boot on everything, but certainly boot on many.
Thoughts?
Ross
[1] Ignoring Cedar Trail, but that's already in meta-intel
Quoted 20 lines · Ross Burton
Hi,
My current test hardware for Yocto work is a Celeron-class Sandy Bridge-based micro PC. As is to be expected for a machine like this, it's got modern Intel graphics and wireless. Neither of which are supported by atom-pc, as it's nominally a "generic netbook" image.
Let's face it -- it's a really bad generic netbook image, it's really a Asus eeePC701-and-similar image. Specifically, only one wifi driver, only i915 GPU driver, and so on.
I'm not arguing for a true generic kernel such as Fedora maintains which boots on almost everything, just a new machine with more flexibility. Including both i915 and i965 GPU drivers covers everything Intel-driven from the earliest netbook to the latest Ivy Bridge[1]. Including the iwl wifi drivers at least covers a good proportion of devices out there. There are probably a few more drivers that are common and give big gains in support. Not exactly boot on everything, but certainly boot on many.
Quoted 1 line
Thoughts?
Seems reasonable to me. We should probably have 32b and 64b of this machine as well.
Signature · 3 lines
Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
Quoted 2 lines · Darren Hart
Seems reasonable to me. We should probably have 32b and 64b of this machine as well.
And x32… :)
Ross
Quoted 5 lines · Ross Burton
Quoted 2 lines · Darren Hart
Seems reasonable to me. We should probably have 32b and 64b of this machine as well.
And x32… :)
From the kernel point of view, these are just configuration extensions to a base, which is where this discussion started (the kernel, I'm excluding userspace on purpose). So this should be one machine with these as overlays, not three different machines.
Cheers,
Bruce
Quoted 8 lines
Ross
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Quoted 11 lines · Bruce Ashfield
Quoted 5 lines · Ross Burton
Quoted 2 lines · Darren Hart
Seems reasonable to me. We should probably have 32b and 64b of this machine as well.
And x32… :)
From the kernel point of view, these are just configuration extensions
to a base, which is where this discussion started (the kernel, I'm excluding userspace on purpose). So this should be one machine with these as overlays, not three different machines.
I would have thought the three different architectures would have called for three different machines. How would this work from the KMACHINE meta-data perspective?
--
Darren
Quoted 14 lines
Cheers,
Bruce
Quoted 8 lines
Ross
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Signature · 3 lines
Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
Quoted 10 lines · Darren Hart
Quoted 7 lines · Bruce Ashfield
Quoted 5 lines · Ross Burton
Quoted 2 lines · Darren Hart
Seems reasonable to me. We should probably have 32b and 64b of this machine as well.
And x32… :)
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
From the kernel point of view, these are just configuration extensions
to a base, which is where this discussion started (the kernel, I'm excluding userspace on purpose). So this should be one machine with these as overlays, not three different machines.I would have thought the three different architectures would have called for three different machines. How would this work from the KMACHINE meta-data perspective?
I've had dual endian machines for ages for MIPS. This is no different. You use a common machine, and then just trigger fragments that change the few options that are different like endianess, etc. So there's a single KMACHINE definition with additions.
Granted, this was more important when there was a strict 1:1 branch -> machine mapping. But it still makes sense to keep things as small as possible. We can do the same thing with three KMACHINE definitions that include a common base, and that's nominally three machines, but the slippery slope is that they start to diverge .. since they are described by three different top level options.
I'm splitting a hair, I just wanted to point out that I wouldn't call word size, endianess or other ABI differences big differences in a machine definition.
Cheers,
Bruce
Quoted 19 lines
--
DarrenQuoted 14 lines
Cheers,
Bruce
Quoted 8 lines
Ross
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Quoted 9 lines · Ross Burton
Hi,
My current test hardware for Yocto work is a Celeron-class Sandy Bridge-based micro PC. As is to be expected for a machine like this, it's got modern Intel graphics and wireless. Neither of which are supported by atom-pc, as it's nominally a "generic netbook" image.
Let's face it -- it's a really bad generic netbook image, it's really a Asus eeePC701-and-similar image. Specifically, only one wifi driver, only i915 GPU driver, and so on.
I'm not arguing for a true generic kernel such as Fedora maintains which boots on almost everything, just a new machine with more flexibility. Including both i915 and i965 GPU drivers covers everything Intel-driven from the earliest netbook to the latest Ivy Bridge[1]. Including the iwl wifi drivers at least covers a good proportion of devices out there. There are probably a few more drivers that are common and give big gains in support. Not exactly boot on everything, but certainly boot on many.
Thoughts?
Send patches, and define the machine. But it has to be something that we can actually *test* and maintain. We don't define 'what if' and 'in case' configurations. We define embedded/tight configurations that should be extended for particular machines.
The common-pc is a bit old, so I'd suggest sending patches to that base and we can consider them on a 1:1 basis. As long as it isn't overly generic, and hits a defined/closed set of machines and drivers, patches won't be denied.
Even better, just branch from one of the existing configs and add more, that way the extensions are separate from the base.
Cheers,
Bruce
Quoted 8 lines
Ross
[1] Ignoring Cedar Trail, but that's already in meta-intel
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Quoted 6 lines
From: [email protected] [mailto:yocto- [email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross Burton
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 1:45 PMHi,
Quoted 8 lines
My current test hardware for Yocto work is a Celeron-class Sandy Bridge- based micro PC. As is to be expected for a machine like this, it's got modern Intel graphics and wireless. Neither of which are supported by atom-pc, as it's nominally a "generic netbook" image.
Let's face it -- it's a really bad generic netbook image, it's really a Asus eeePC701-and-similar image. Specifically, only one wifi driver, only i915 GPU driver, and so on.
I thought we had some Sandy Bridge BSP already?
Quoted 17 lines
I'm not arguing for a true generic kernel such as Fedora maintains which boots on almost everything, just a new machine with more flexibility. Including both i915 and i965 GPU drivers covers everything Intel-driven from the earliest netbook to the latest Ivy Bridge[1]. Including the iwl wifi drivers at least covers a good proportion of devices out there. There are probably a few more drivers that are common and give big gains in support. Not exactly boot on everything, but certainly boot on many.
Thoughts?
Ross
[1] Ignoring Cedar Trail, but that's already in meta-intel
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Quoted 11 lines · David C
Quoted 11 lines
From: [email protected] [mailto:yocto- [email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross Burton
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 1:45 PMHi,
My current test hardware for Yocto work is a Celeron-class Sandy Bridge- based micro PC. As is to be expected for a machine like this, it's got modern Intel graphics and wireless. Neither of which are supported by atom-pc, as it's nominally a "generic netbook" image.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Let's face it -- it's a really bad generic netbook image, it's really a Asus eeePC701-and-similar image. Specifically, only one wifi driver, only i915 GPU driver, and so on.
I thought we had some Sandy Bridge BSP already?
We do. The problem is that doesn't define things like which wifi device is used. There seems to be a reasonable amount of interest in a much more generally useful x86 BSP. This seems to fit the goals of the atom-pc BSP, which has become a bit stale.
Quoted 23 lines
Quoted 11 lines
I'm not arguing for a true generic kernel such as Fedora maintains which boots on almost everything, just a new machine with more flexibility. Including both i915 and i965 GPU drivers covers everything Intel-driven from the earliest netbook to the latest Ivy Bridge[1]. Including the iwl wifi drivers at least covers a good proportion of devices out there. There are probably a few more drivers that are common and give big gains in support. Not exactly boot on everything, but certainly boot on many.
Thoughts?
Quoted 7 lines
Ross
[1] Ignoring Cedar Trail, but that's already in meta-intel
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Signature · 3 lines
Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel