[meta-freescale] [PATCH] mx6q-ba16: Add initial board support

Otavio Salvador otavio.salvador at ossystems.com.br
Thu Aug 27 09:56:23 PDT 2015

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Justin Waters
<justin.waters at timesys.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Otavio Salvador
> <otavio.salvador at ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Justin Waters
>> <justin.waters at timesys.com> wrote:
>> > We have been working with a vanilla (4.0+) kernel on some related
>> > platforms,
>> > and are considering moving the BA16 platform to this as well. Is there
>> > an
>> > effort to move some of the mainline work, such as etna-viv and related
>> > packages, into the meta-freescale layer? Would it be acceptable to push
>> > a
>> > 4.0 kernel even if those packages are not supported?
>> We have intending to do this for quite some time but we are lacking
>> the resources to do so.
> I do have some patches against meta-fsl-arm-extra to add support for
> etna-viv. I can clean those up a bit and send them out, although they need a
> lot of work to play nicely with the proprietary packages.

This is great and very welcome. Those should go for meta-fsl-arm
though and to be enabled somehow.

If you can please prepare the patches and send them for initial
review. We need to make them to play nicely but I am keen to help in
finding possible ways to do so. Your initial patches would help for

>> However I want to know what level of compromise Timesys will have in
>> maintaining the board and any proposed new components as we have been
>> having a hard time to get the Vybrid boards updated[3][4][5] (both
>> maintained by Timesys) since long time ago even though
>> Toradex[6][7][8] has did all the hard work of updating it for 4.0
>> kernel. I do hope to get this solved and discussed this with Andy at
>> FTF but no move has been done so far.
> Andy had mentioned that conversation. We are currently working on a plan for
> Vybrid. Once the higher-ups come to an agreement, we'll get that implemented
> and moving forward. I'll keep you posted on any updates. Is there anything
> in particular that is blocking development on your side? If so, I can
> prioritize that internally.

Great news but I want to make clear that October is next and our code
freeze as well so better to have this soon. Seriously, most work is
done by Toradex so it is a couple of days of work to get the
integrated boards using it.

>> So all Timesys help and contributions are welcome but we do need to
>> have a high level of commitment from you guys if more high impact
>> changes are going to be proposed.
> Understood. I'm working with Advantech to get those details ironed out, but
> I needed to make sure this approach was viable. It sounds like it is.

It is. For them, I believe the 3.14 fork is be very attractive for
them as it offer all features of the SoC. A 4.1 fork is very appealing
and something which would help a lot, if done in a polished way,
however it requires a lot of more work to get done.

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

More information about the meta-freescale mailing list