[meta-freescale] [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 3/4] linux-fslc-mx6 (3.14-1.0.x): Add recipe

[Nikolay Dimitrov]

Hi Daiane, Otavio,

On 06/18/2015 04:58 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Daiane Angolini
> <daiane.list at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Otavio Salvador
>> <otavio at ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Nikolay Dimitrov
>>> <picmaster at mail.bg> wrote:
>>>> So, in terms of functionality this kernel sits somewhere
>>>> between mainline and FSL releases, is that correct?
>>>
>>> Yes; it is FSL release + stable releases + vendor/community
>>> fixes
>>
>> I've been thinking about this issue. And this provider (for imx6
>> only) may make sense to have "fslc" sufix, exactly because it has
>> freescale + community patches
>>
>> However, the other (currently linux-fslc) does not make sense.
>> Maybe linux-cmt makes more sense today.
>>
>> I remember one of the arguments to not use only "linux" and use a
>> prefix was that it's not a pure mainline provider (it clones from
>> github) and because it leave the "linux" only for internal kernels
>>
>> Any other suggestion?
>
> I think we need to consider some things here:
>
> linux-fslc is a kernel tree we maintain u-boot-fslc is a u-boot tree
> we maintain
>
> both have same goals and the idea is to provide a place to share
> patches and backports.
>
> The motivation to make the 3.14 is because FSL is not taking the
> fixes and security updates from stable, so a place to merge those
> seems to be beneficial. I don't want a plethora of names as it makes
> harder for people to contribute and share work so I propose two
> solutions:
>
> linux-fslc_4.0.bb linux-fslc-mx6_3.14-1.0.x.bb
>
> or
>
> linux-fslc_4.0.bb linux-fslc_3.14-1.0.x-mx6.bb
>
> Both works.

Thanks for sharing your ideas, this helps me to understand somewhat
better the motivation behind creating these linux kernel providers.

So, my comments are not to oppose any changes/improvements at all, but
just to add a more global perspective on where the Yocto kernel
providers fit in the long chain between mainline and the OEM:

1. linux-mainline
-----------------
Good generic imx6 support, no support for ASRC, VPU. Regarding the GPU -
Jon Nettleton is working on the etnaviv code, so probably some day we'll
have a fully open GPU support there. Until then - no GPU support in
mainline, only basic FB on hdmi/lvds (parallel lcd probably also works,
but I haven't tested it). Supported by the kernel developers.

2. linux-fslc
-------------
Almost mainline. Here we collect patches that either will take very long
to be applied in mainline, or are inappropriate for mainline (but still
useful for Yocto users). As stability and features should be as good
mainline, if not slightly better due to custom fixes for Yocto.
Supported by Yocto community.

3. linux-as-proposed-by-otavio
------------------------------
Man-in-the middle. Forward-ported FSL code, back-ported important
patches from mainline. Probably something like "linux-imx-next". Who
will support this code?

4. linux-imx
------------
THE FSL kernel. Freescale's team is doing a great job, and there are
more or less regular releases with good overall quality. It's quite
normal/expected that this kernel version will always lag behind
mainline. One thing which bothers me is that there's no way for the
community to interact with the FSL BSP team, which means no transparent
way to submit/track/resolve issues. This same role is currently being
played by the Yocto community due to several individuals who have
internal access to the FSL BSP team and can help pushing through issues.
Supported by Yocto community (including FSL engineers).


So, even if I like the idea that #3 will have newer code than #4, the
main question is who will support it (support means both development and
validation)?

Regards,
Nikolay