[meta-intel] BSP retirements from meta-intel layer

[Chris Tapp]

On 18 Mar 2014, at 01:50, Ong, Boon Leong <boon.leong.ong at intel.com> wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvhart at linux.intel.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 6:54 AM
>> To: Keskinarkaus, Teemu; Chris Tapp; Kamble, Nitin A
>> Cc: meta-intel at yoctoproject.org; Chang, Rebecca Swee Fun; Ong, Boon Leong
>> Subject: Re: [meta-intel] BSP retirements from meta-intel layer
>> 
>> On 3/13/14, 21:21, "Keskinarkaus, Teemu"
>> <Teemu.Keskinarkaus at Maximatecc.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> From: meta-intel-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-intel-
>>>> bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Chris Tapp
>>>> 
>>>> Following on from the "chiefriver BSP retirement thread", what is the
>>>> general  policy for BSP life-cycles within meta-intel?
>>>> 
>>>> For example, we committed to using the Cedartrail BSP a couple of
>>>> years back as  if offered support for what was then a new platform
>>>> with a reasonable forward  buy-time. However, support for that has
>>>> been dropped even though boards are  still available using the chipset
>>>> (e.g. ASRock DN2800MT) and these are going to  be available for a few
>>>> years yet.
>>>> 
>>>> From our point of view it is a pity not to be able to make use of the
>>>> improvements  and enhancements that have gone into later Yocto
>>>> versions, especially as we're  continually updating our software.
>>> 
>>> This interests me as well since we have been planning on using Yocto on
>>> our HW for a long time. We also noticed the drop of Cedartrail BSP and
>>> we ended up on porting it to newer Yocto ourselves which of course
>>> wasn't what we were hoping to get when switching to Yocto.
>> 
>> As for chief river, sys940x, and n450 (which I haven't yet posted the retirement
>> notification for), these systems are simply being supported by the intel-common
>> BSPs (intel-core2-32 and intel-corei7-64). So support is not being dropped, it is
>> being streamlined. The hardware is still supported.
>> 
>> While we would like to support every platform continually, we (I speak of the
>> core yocto team here, not as an Intel BSP maintainer) sometimes must decide
>> between adding a new platform or continuing to support an older platform. I
>> expect this to become less of an issues as the platforms become more open over
>> time (as we are seeing with the graphics on the Baytrail SoCs for example).
>> 
>> As for more specific platforms such as cedar trail as mentioned here, that must
>> be addressed the BSP maintainers. If folks are doing the forward ports
>> themselves, that is something the maintainers need to be aware of and take into
>> consideration with their support plans. Please discuss this with them (Rebecca
>> and Boon Leong added to Cc) - off list would be best as this becomes an
>> individual support issue between the customer and the Board/BSP vendor (Intel
>> ISG in this case).
>> 
> In the case of Cedartrail, the last YP BSP is support is version 1.3 (danny). There is 
> no plan for upgrade to newer YP version. If you have specific need, please contact
> your Intel sales rep/account and they should be able to bring your case for internal
> whether an upgrade plan is approved. Thanks and sorry for inconvenience caused.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't have an Intel sales rep/account as we are only a small player when it comes to hardware. We typically make 100 to 200 units a year, and, because this is low volume, we use COTS hardware like the DN2800MT (formally Intel, now ASRock). I will get in touch with the UK sales office and see what they suggest.

In general I can't imagine anyone expecting support for old hardware to continue, but support was dropped with Dylan back in April 2013 even though the silicon is still in production. This is really why I was hoping an official position on support could be given, as small players (of which there are many in the embedded sector) don't have the contacts with the silicon vendors which means it can take a long, long time for important information to make it through.

Though there is a bit of a "heads-up" as I've just seen that EOL was announced back in November 2013 for the non-embedded version of the N2800 - just sent a request to our board supplier to check which one they use...

Chris Tapp

opensource at keylevel.com
www.keylevel.com