[meta-freescale] [meta-fsl-arm-extra PATCH 2/2] linux-boundary: Add support to Vivante 4.6.9p12 GPU code

[Daiane Angolini]

On 08/12/2013 01:34 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Eric Nelson
> <eric.nelson at boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>> On 08/12/2013 08:18 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Eric Nelson
>>> <eric.nelson at boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/12/2013 05:50 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Eric Nelson
>>>>> <eric.nelson at boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now, gpu-viv-bin-mx6q-3.5.7-1.0.0-hfp.bin only supports hard
>>>>>> float. Will the EABI (4.0.0) binaries continue to be supported or
>>>>>> will there be a corresponding package of EABI binaries?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's also a gpu-viv-bin-mx6q-3.5.7-1.0.0-sfp.bin and it is taken in
>>>>> case you're building for Soft Float-Point. It should 'Just Work'.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If that's the case, we can just push the patches onto our
>>>> main branch and not deal with the old/new GPU package question.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not really as it will make impossible for your customers to use the
>>> kernel with LTIB at 4.0.0 BSP (well, I'd love they stop using it
>>> but...).
>>>
>>
>> It's not just LTIB that's a question mark. The same comment
>> goes for Debian, Buildroot, Timesys, Ubuntu, Arch or home-brew
>> userspaces.
>>
>> If it's Freescale's recommendation that this GPU package is
>> the **right** one for production use, our primary kernel
>> branch should probably reflect that.
>
> I think the recommendation is to stay in their 'official' and 'test'
> set of packages so I think it is better to have p12 support as patches
> so it is clear it is something we are doing 'by ourselves'.

3.5.7-1.0.0 - is an alpha release. It does not have the same "stability" 
comparing with a GA release. It is not shared with *all* customers.

>
>> There's no reason someone using another userspace builder
>> can't patch their process to update things.
>
> Well yes but it makes their life harder and a branch which won't work
> with 'official' package set. So I think patches are the way to go for
> now.
>
>> That said, I haven't quite heard this as Freescale's recommendation.
>> Daiane, I don't suppose you want to stick your neck out...?
>
> Poor Daiane ;-)

When I'm talking to meta-freescale I'm "Freescale". When I'm talking to 
guys inside Freescale, I'm "community".

Here, I can only say public and official stuff. If you need Freescale's 
help, please enter a SR or a question on imx-community.

=(



-- 
Daiane