Hi Khem, On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 10:50:13AM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 10:03 AM Quentin Schulz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On November 16, 2021 6:45:05 PM GMT+01:00, Khem Raj <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 9:12 AM Quentin Schulz < > > >[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 09:08:41AM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > > >> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 9:04 AM Quentin Schulz > > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 09:00:42AM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > > >> > > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 7:52 AM Quentin Schulz > > >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > From Linux kernel v5.14 to v5.14.11 (both included), the Ethernet > > >> MAC > > >> > > > > controller found on RK3399 is not working. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > A fix is available in v5.14.12 and later (available also in > > >> > > > > v5.15) > > >> > > > > which is provided here and applied to linux-yocto source tree if > > >> > > > > linux-yocto version is of the impacted ones. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > The conditional patching is unfortunately required because > > >> Honister 3.4 > > >> > > > > has linux-yocto v5.14.9 and Honister 3.4.1 will have at least > > >> > > > > linux-yocto v5.14.14. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Patching piece below looks quite a bit. > > >> > > > lets just fix v5.14.14 and dont worry about 3.4 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > v5.14.14 is already fixed. The only release currently is 3.4 and I > > >> > > hit > > >> > > that issue, hence the patch. > > >> > > I assume not everybody is updating to 3.4.1 when it's out, I've seen > > >> > > people running behind dot releases. > > >> > > What's bothering you? > > >> > > > >> > once dot release is out then thats whats maintained not the original > > >> > release since they are incremental. > > >> > the anon python to apply a patch. Can you explain why we want to patch > > >> > applied this way ? > > >> > > > >> > > >> I could define a python function and use it like this: > > >> SRC_URI:append:rk3399 = "${@rk3399_fix_mac(d)}" > > >> > > >> Would that work better for you? > > > > > > > > >I am not yet convinced why should we have such version specific patch > > > > > > > If you could explain what's *really* bothering you, I could try to find a > > proper explanation or agree with you but it's a bit too vague to me right > > now. Anyway, I'll do some guesses in the next paragraphs. > > > > Because Ethernet does not work for all RK3399-based boards in the latest > > and only release of Honister? > > meta-rockchip does not have honister branch for now. So it expects > master to keep working with honister for now. kernel upgrades are > already committed into honister branch on meta-yocto-bsps so fix it > already available in latest honister > branch and will be in imminent point release soon as well. >
meta-rockchip does not have a honister branch for now because it is still working with master branch from OE-Core. This patch does not break this behaviour. > > > meta-rockchip is the BSP layer for Rockchip based devices, if not there, > > where should I put this patch? > > > > Or are we just going to say "Ethernet does not work, we know" to people > > asking instead of having this patch in? Obviously you could tell them to > > upgrade their oe-core/poky git repo to rolling honister or 3.4.1 once it's > > out but having this patch in avoid those questions. > > > > I would say yes, document it as that of a known issue and possible fix Do I add a "known issues" to the README then? Or where am I supposed to add this piece of information were this patch not merged? > if someone is using exact point release. They might have snapshotted > meta-rockpi too and in that case it will be easy for them to carry a > local patch if needed. > vesion specific patching would also be setting a not so desired > patching practice, so I am trying to avoid it if we can. > I think we both understand each other's stance and I've no additional arguments to give, so it'll be up to the maintainer(s) which is officially Trevor, but maybe I am not aware of other unofficial maintainers :) In any case, I can have this patch in my own vendor BSP but since it applies to all RK3399-based devices, I thought it'd be nicer to have it in upstream meta-rockchip than in a vendor BSP unrelated to the boards one's using. @Trevor/maintainers, let us know what's your opinion on this so I know if I should send a v2 using inline python function for SRC_URI instead of using the anonymous python function. Cheers, Quentin
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#55358): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/55358 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/87097671/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
