[meta-freescale] Request to integrate freescale i.mx 3.10.9-1.0.0 alpha release into dora branch of meta-fsl-arm

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Eric Nelson
<eric.nelson at boundarydevices.com> wrote:
> On 10/02/2013 06:56 AM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
>>
>> On 10/02/2013 10:55 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Diego <diego.ml at zoho.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Otavio requested for the community to approve this change since the
>>>>> dora
>>>>> branch is being finalized in next 2 weeks.  I'll be upstreaming
>>>>> patches to
>>>>> master-next this week so they can be tested by end of the week.  Please
>>>>> reply to this email if you have a concern with integrating 3.10.9-1.0.0
>>>>> into the dora branch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Lauren.
>>>>
>>>> I think there's no objection for merge if that won't be the default.
>>>>
>>>> What would be the kernel state for dora then?
>>>> - 3.0.35 with Vivante 4.6.9p12 patches as default
>>>> - 3.5.7 alpha2 as an option
>>>> - 3.10.9 alpha as an option
>>>>
>>>> Is that what you were thinking?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd prefer to replace 3.5.7 with 3.10.9.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>
> -1 (comments below)
>
>
>>>
>>> When 3.10.9 turns GA we may make it default or not. 3.0.35 needs to be
>>> kept around due backward support.
>>
>>
>> Do not forget that 3.10.9-1.0.0 is not only kernel. It's all BSP packages
>>
> Thanks for pointing this out. I had assumed backward-compatibility with
> 3.5.7/3.0.35_4.1.0 packages.
>
> Patches haven't yet been submitted for the other bits, have they?
>
> It would be really nice if this update came with a bit more commentary
> about ABI and functional compatibility rather than a single patch
> submission and a new branch magically appearing on git.freescale.com.

+1

> I'd really like to see Dora become a stable platform for those wanting
> to test the full functionality of their boards. We never really had
> that for kernel versions 3.0.35_4.0.0, and only have that for
> 3.0.35_4.1.0 on Dora.

+1

> If there isn't some form of PREFERRED_VERSION_ support for 3.0.35_4.1.0
> that allows a stable, fully-functional build, I think that 3.10.9 should
> be pushed into either "master" or a "next" branch.

Yes; the idea is to keep 3.0.35-4.1.0 as default until 3.10.9 turns
GA. After that I think we ought to support 3.0.35-4.1.0 for Dora along
with 3.10.9-1.0.0 (be it default or not) and for 1.6 plan to drop
3.0.35-4.1.0.

> What's more, I think it's very important for different boards to be
> able to specify which kernel version is recommended for each, since
> the efforts behind them progress along different time-lines.

Yes; this can be done. We does it already and Bondary's boards also
use a different kernel.

> If we don't have the structure to support this, each board vendor
> will (and should) probably plan on forking meta-freescale for their
> own efforts, which would be a shame.

Please don't. Or it will turn to be LTIB 2.0 :P

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750