[meta-freescale] Please review the proposal of FSL Yocto layers reorg

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Eric Bénard <eric at eukrea.com> wrote:
> Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:59:41 +0000,
> McClintock Matthew-B29882 <B29882 at freescale.com> a écrit :
>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Eric Bénard <eric at eukrea.com> wrote:
>> > Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:52:02 +0000,
>> > McClintock Matthew-B29882 <B29882 at freescale.com> a écrit :
>> >> I think you misinterpreted the intent of my statement, the goal is to
>> >> provide the best support we can for the open source versions and get
>> >> feedback as well. However, specifically stating what will be done for
>> >> each release, branch, layer, etc is not something that is a
>> >> deliverable on the open source end and I don't see it happening soon.
>> >> That being said, there is no malicious intent and supporting upstream
>> >> and making it work as well as possible is the ultimate goal so our SDK
>> >> release requires less effort and work.
>> >>
>> > I may have misinterpreted your statement but it seems you make a
>> > difference between the open source version and the SDK release : isn't
>> > that roughly the same thing when we talk of meta-fsl-* where the SDK
>> > release can be seen as a snapshots of the opensource stable branch at
>> > the date of the release ? If not what are the differences ?
>>
>> They *should* be the same. But for SDK releases sometimes we skip
>> entire Yocto releases (e.g. danny). SDK versions *may* contain
>> slightly different versions. This comes into play more with oe-core
>> where we don't have official control and we need to include a specific
>> fix for the SDK. Layers themselves tend to have less reason to deviate
>> from the upstream versions since we control both sides so they
>> *should* be the same.
>>
>> > Also, do you plan to sync the public accessible git tree only when you
>> > do a release or will they get the patches in "realtime" ?
>>
>> These should go in real time esp. if we are working on the current
>> release (e.g. master branch). Right now we are still using denzil
>> until the May release which will be based on what is now master.
>>
> understood, thanks for the details.
>
> One last thing while at it : last year, Linaro's FSL team told me they
> were about to release an updated kernel for i.MX53 (with updated GPU
> closed source libraries & drivers as they had sources for that under
> NDA - the userspace binaries are packed into an hwpack named something
> like hwpack_linaro-lt-mx5_YYYYMMDD_armel_supported.tar.gz ).
> In the end that was never made public but from what I understood they
> delivered the sources to Freescale : are there any plan to release
> these versions (even if that's not officialy supported by Freescale SDK
> and marked as experimental) to meta-fsl-arm so that we can update i.MX53
> based designs to more recent kernel than 2.6.35 and still use the GPU ?

Most of my comments reflect on the ppc / networking side of our
organization. So I can't comment on the ARM / Linaro bits.

-M