Trilok Soni wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 10:32 PM, Dirk Behme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Troy Kisky wrote:
I'm exploring the montavista git tree and saw that there has been no
activity for a few months.
Yes, unfortunately, you are right. git kernel is hosted by MV, and
maintained by a MV employee, Kevin Hilman. This is the open source git
kernel for DaVinci, we all ("the community") can, should and have to
contribute to if it should be viable. The "commercial official"
product TI/MV still supports is the 2.6.10 (?) "TI/MV" kernel.
Back to open source git kernel, unfortunately, it seems that Kevin
actually has no time to maintain the DaVinci git kernel, apply changes
and update it to recent Linus' 2.6.24 version.
Technically speaking, there are few (~5?) patches in the list archives
which should/can applied to the git archive as it is at the moment
(2.6.23). Cause of Kevins lack of time, these are not applied yet.
Regarding update to 2.6.24: The OMAP git kernel, the parent of DaVinci
git kernel, is already at 2.6.24. Some work will be necessary to
update due to API/interface changes, though. But this is doable. A
bigger issue I actually can't estimate are changes to video driver.
Some weeks ago Kevin mentioned that video driver also needs a
significant rework since the video-buf layer changed in mainline. IMHO
there would be at least the option to update git kernel to recent
2.6.24 fixing the simple API/interface changes, but in a first step
leave the video driver broken. Opinions?
Maybe anybody from TI or MV can comment on thoughts/plans/furture regading
http://source.mvista.com/git/?p=linux-davinci-2.6.git;a=summary
At this point of time, we need helping hand from TI DaVinci
developers, to submit the internal development patches after in sync
with latest OMAP git tree as it is the parent one. I am seeing lots of
new OMAP3 related patches coming from TI developers.
Yes, OMAP is a quite good example. DaVinci should learn from it!
I feel that TI
should push their internal DaVinci development team for open source
submissions too.
Another big pain is that I see lot's of DaVinci based products
churning out thesedays, but those small/mid-level companies showing no
interest in submitting those driver patches to DaVinci ML.
Yes, I totally agree. It somehow remembers me to Thomas Gleixners "The
embedded Linux nightmare - an epilogue"
http://lwn.net/Articles/232379/
Worth reading!
As of now I
only see to TI to change this situation.
Hopefully anybody from TI will comment.
Regards
Dirk
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
