[meta-freescale] 9/8 community meeting, was [RFC] The proposal of FSL QorIQ SDK upstream
Bob Cochran
yocto at mindchasers.com
Thu Sep 11 08:45:30 PDT 2014
On 09/09/2014 09:28 AM, zhenhua.luo at freescale.com wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Please see my inline comments.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: meta-freescale-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-freescale-
>> bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Bob Cochran
>> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:05 AM
>>
>> On 07/16/2014 02:00 AM, zhenhua.luo at freescale.com wrote:
>>>
>>> More to do
>>> • Setup public bug management system for FSL SDKs.
>>> • Push all modules to public git repository to ensure FSL community BSP
>> sync with FSL released SDK.
>>> • Setup an external mailing list for external git repository for FSL
>> SDK discussion, patch submission, patch review.
>>> • Setup an patch management tool(patchwork or gerrit) to manage patches
>> from community.
>>> • Enhance the commit message in patch to facilitate the patch search
>> for specific issue.
>>
>> Can we get an update on the items listed above during tomorrow's
>> community meeting (or soon afterwards)?
> [Luo Zhenhua-B19537] Those items are being worked on, I will send an separated email when the infrastructure is available.
>
>> Also, I had previously asked about creating a branch on meta-fsl-ppc that
>> could be used to track patches / improvements for SDK1.6 in addition to
>> master, which I think is basically being used to set up 1.7.
> [Luo Zhenhua-B19537] Why can't those fixes be submitted to master directly?
Hi Zhenhua,
Thank you for the reply.
A master branch and some documentation is great for getting a board up &
running, but I don't think it is sufficient for putting together a
stable code base (snap shot) and then working out the defects.
I have been assuming that each FSL SDK release is a starting point for a
product code base, and I am hoping that the FSL Community becomes the
venue where each SDK (perhaps mirrored as a particular meta-fsl-ppc
branch) can be tested and improved to the point that it is stable &
product worthy for various customer targets.
If all patches, upgrades, and new code goes to the same (meta-fsl-ppc)
master branch, then the line is blurred between improving the last SDK
and setting up the next, which isn't necessarily more stable than the
previous one.
Along the same line, I ask that the community works together to develop
a statement on a process for using the code available in the community
repos to develop, test, and release a product. I hope you and others
believe this is an attainable and worthy goal. I would hope that a
single process could eventually apply to both QorIQ and i.MX.
>
>> I need to start getting after some bugs on SDK1.6 related to various
>> kernel oops that pop up inconsistently. I would love to see an
>> infrastructure in place to help with this.
> [Luo Zhenhua-B19537] Can you please summarize the defects of SDK 1.6 and post by email before infrastructure readiness?
Regarding a defect list, I'm going to start investigating a couple of
them tomorrow. As typical, the problems I see are inconsistent. The
two I'm going to try to recreate and document are i) kernel oops during
user space init during; ii) kernel oops during nfs nework copy (of
rootfs onto an SSD). I hope to have some useful defect facts by next
week.
During the 9/8 community call, I was asked to enter a bug report in
yocto bugzilla as a test case. Are you OK with me entering a new
bugzilla item?
Thanks,
Bob
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Zhenhua
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Zhenhua
>>>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> meta-freescale mailing list
>> meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
More information about the meta-freescale
mailing list