Hi Otavio,
On 06/18/2015 07:21 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Nikolay Dimitrov
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/18/2015 04:58 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Daiane Angolini
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Otavio Salvador
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Nikolay Dimitrov
<[email protected]> wrote:
So, in terms of functionality this kernel sits somewhere
between mainline and FSL releases, is that correct?
Yes; it is FSL release + stable releases + vendor/community
fixes
I've been thinking about this issue. And this provider (for
imx6 only) may make sense to have "fslc" sufix, exactly
because it has freescale + community patches
However, the other (currently linux-fslc) does not make sense.
Maybe linux-cmt makes more sense today.
I remember one of the arguments to not use only "linux" and
use a prefix was that it's not a pure mainline provider (it
clones from github) and because it leave the "linux" only for
internal kernels
Any other suggestion?
I think we need to consider some things here:
linux-fslc is a kernel tree we maintain u-boot-fslc is a u-boot
tree we maintain
both have same goals and the idea is to provide a place to share
patches and backports.
The motivation to make the 3.14 is because FSL is not taking the
fixes and security updates from stable, so a place to merge
those seems to be beneficial. I don't want a plethora of names
as it makes harder for people to contribute and share work so I
propose two solutions:
linux-fslc_4.0.bb linux-fslc-mx6_3.14-1.0.x.bb
or
linux-fslc_4.0.bb linux-fslc_3.14-1.0.x-mx6.bb
Both works.
Thanks for sharing your ideas, this helps me to understand somewhat
better the motivation behind creating these linux kernel
providers.
So, my comments are not to oppose any changes/improvements at all,
but just to add a more global perspective on where the Yocto kernel
providers fit in the long chain between mainline and the OEM:
1. linux-mainline ----------------- Good generic imx6 support, no
support for ASRC, VPU. Regarding the GPU - Jon Nettleton is
working on the etnaviv code, so probably some day we'll have a
fully open GPU support there. Until then - no GPU support in
mainline, only basic FB on hdmi/lvds (parallel lcd probably also
works, but I haven't tested it). Supported by the kernel
developers.
2. linux-fslc ------------- Almost mainline. Here we collect
patches that either will take very long to be applied in mainline,
or are inappropriate for mainline (but still useful for Yocto
users). As stability and features should be as good mainline, if
not slightly better due to custom fixes for Yocto. Supported by
Yocto community.
3. linux-as-proposed-by-otavio ------------------------------
Man-in-the middle. Forward-ported FSL code, back-ported important
patches from mainline. Probably something like "linux-imx-next".
Who will support this code?
4. linux-imx ------------ THE FSL kernel. Freescale's team is
doing a great job, and there are more or less regular releases with
good overall quality. It's quite normal/expected that this kernel
version will always lag behind mainline. One thing which bothers
me is that there's no way for the community to interact with the
FSL BSP team, which means no transparent way to
submit/track/resolve issues. This same role is currently being
played by the Yocto community due to several individuals who have
internal access to the FSL BSP team and can help pushing through
issues. Supported by Yocto community (including FSL engineers).
So, even if I like the idea that #3 will have newer code than #4,
the main question is who will support it (support means both
development and validation)?
#2 linux-fslc is a tree to host fslc modified kernels. It has no
compromise to be mainline only.
#3 allow us to share work among vendors and bring fixes while reusing
the work done by FSL BSP team, board vendors and community.
#4 has no support; as soon you port it to your board it is
non-supported kernel. As soon you move away of their BSP release it
is non-supported kernel and plus it does not have patches applied
once tagged (nor security or fixes) so any change needs to wait for
next GA.
To be honest, FSL does not apply fixes until next GA so there is no
way to improve their kernel, u-boot, whatever. We try to fill the gap
here and avoid work duplication.
The amount of duplicated work done by board vendors is insane, I am
trying to improve it as much as I can.
I see, and fully agree with the explanations. My current understanding
(could be wrong) is that the current FSL drivers in 3.14.28 are not
possible to be rebased to newer mainline kernels, is that correct?
That's why I commented about the possible confusion, as for me it's good
to see in the kernel name whether it has or has not support for the SoC
bells/whistles (-mainline/-fslc vs -imx).
If my assumption is wrong and these drivers *can* be rebased while
retaining compatibility with the binary blobs, than probably #2 and #3
start to look like something that can be merged (what Daiane said also).
Regards,
Nikolay
--
_______________________________________________
meta-freescale mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
