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

[Post Lauren-RAA013]

3.10.9 will be a GA kernel by early next year.

3.5.7-alpha2 is just graphics package (fixes beyond 3.0.35-4.1.0 based on p12 version)
3.10.9-1.0.0_alpha graphics is still p12 based with additional fixes beyond 3.5.7-alpha2 so it should replace 3.5.7-alpha2.  3.10.9 also provides full Weston-wayland support.

We understand that 3.0.35-4.1.0 is the current GA current and is preferred by those wanting a stable kernel.  Just note that the non-kernel packages are pretty close to the 3.0.35-4.1.0 release that just came out in August so I'm not that worried about stability.  I built with community 3.0.35 and community uboot 2013.10 and had no problems with non-kernel 3.10.9 components.  Unfortunately we don't have test resources to test 3.0.35-4.1.0 with 3.10.9-1.0.0 non-kernel components but my sanity test showed it worked.  Imx-test requires one update for a header name change between the kernels that I've sent to Otavio.

The 3.10.9 release has all the imx6 boards including imx6 solo lite and it went through a full test cycle for our alpha release (and will go through more test cycles for beta and ga).

The goal is to get this integrated so that our GA 3.10.9 kernel will be on a stable yocto branch.  Our future 3.10.9 beta and GA will be based on the dora branch not the master branch.

Our other option is just release on our release layer meta-fsl-bsp-release and that is normally our plan but since dora is just coming out we asked for an exception for this time since our GA will be complete far before Yocto 1.6 is available.

Lauren
i.MX Yocto Team Lead

-----Original Message-----
From: meta-freescale-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-freescale-bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Otavio Salvador
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 10:11 AM
To: Eric Nelson
Cc: meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org; Diego
Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] Request to integrate freescale i.mx 3.10.9-1.0.0 alpha release into dora branch of meta-fsl-arm

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
_______________________________________________
meta-freescale mailing list
meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale