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

[Nikolay Dimitrov]

Hi Otavio,

On 06/18/2015 04:58 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
[snip]
>
> 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

Understood. Then here's my proposal, which I hope aligns with what you
already outlined:

1. Drop SOC name from the provider name
...in order to have more SOCs benefit from the same efforts. First,
patches in non-soc-specific common areas can be reused as-is (ext4
patches anyone :D?), and second, it would be great to have 1 repository
where all these efforts are concentrated, not separate for each separate
SoC (also, there are drivers for IP-blocks which are reused 1:1 across
SoCs).

2. Make sure the provider name doesn't contain a delimited string of
"fsl", "imx" or "mx"
... to make sure the provider is not confused with the FSL provider, and
to give due credit to the upstream + community efforts.

3. Drop the GA release version from the provider name
...for several reasons:
- it will limit the ability to merge patches from different GA releases
(if/when such need arises)
- to not confuse it with FSL GA releases
- sooner or later due to upstream patches merged this code will be
further and further away from the FSL release point.

So I think that a provider name like...

linux-fslc_3.14.28
linux-fslc_3.17.4
linux-fslc_4.0

...seems practical.

(I can only make the educated guess that "fslc" = "Freescale community", 
but "fsl-community" really seems quite long).

Regards,
Nikolay