From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id EAEC6E00A84; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:48:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [209.85.192.170 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com (mail-pd0-f170.google.com [209.85.192.170]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F64E00A31 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pdjn11 with SMTP id n11so70431312pdj.0 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:47:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=u2YugJEm3My/vpuL+y3j1t9Ca1LRnELw2OJBI6B/J6w=; b=x73sXPP6SfF88useW1kObU3cUNrPNo3nRciehWDnFvIizkUZ/duBnDXos9FAqVNnk1 NGncZtyS1s2wNR5H6/KG4RfL14Sujgj4W9IH6DCft5t4mVynlwRSjemZ2S8A7JWqUiSU jxYXglTCXQSGpixmk/LzeEXeBmHB8j5c1TC5PvR7u1bNbQan2wH+vQQeokLEhQ1pFtnF W8Kz6GEiscvkGAsvoq0QyUxhyLkzAPbTjE985FQIWxww6NIQZudAD+Bpfhx9gOWlrsK/ GYEzML7TuPqHuqy382hMfrCHLZ6G2n4M1nTvSoHYdxukjksAw1UmdvEeIfgvwZ673csA BCBQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.225.97 with SMTP id rj1mr23252985pbc.108.1434646076993; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Sender: otavio.salvador@gmail.com Received: by 10.70.34.109 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:47:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5582F407.5010803@mail.bg> References: <1434564146-11377-1-git-send-email-otavio@ossystems.com.br> <1434564146-11377-3-git-send-email-otavio@ossystems.com.br> <5581BC50.5020504@mail.bg> <5581BE95.9060009@mail.bg> <5581C98C.8060802@mail.bg> <5582E4A1.5070108@mail.bg> <5582F407.5010803@mail.bg> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:47:56 -0300 X-Google-Sender-Auth: iCRjlzNot80KnTBm99ym34PHptI Message-ID: From: Otavio Salvador To: Nikolay Dimitrov Cc: meta-freescale Mailing List Subject: Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 3/4] linux-fslc-mx6 (3.14-1.0.x): Add recipe X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:48:17 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Nikolay Dimitrov wrote: > On 06/18/2015 07:21 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: ... >> #2 linux-fslc is a tree to host fslc modified kernels. It has no >> compromise to be mainline only. >> >> #3 allow us to share work among vendors and bring fixes while reusing >> the work done by FSL BSP team, board vendors and community. >> >> #4 has no support; as soon you port it to your board it is >> non-supported kernel. As soon you move away of their BSP release it >> is non-supported kernel and plus it does not have patches applied >> once tagged (nor security or fixes) so any change needs to wait for >> next GA. >> >> To be honest, FSL does not apply fixes until next GA so there is no >> way to improve their kernel, u-boot, whatever. We try to fill the gap >> here and avoid work duplication. >> >> The amount of duplicated work done by board vendors is insane, I am >> trying to improve it as much as I can. > > > I see, and fully agree with the explanations. My current understanding > (could be wrong) is that the current FSL drivers in 3.14.28 are not > possible to be rebased to newer mainline kernels, is that correct? Correct; some can be adapted to work on top of mainline kernel however this is another derivative work. > That's why I commented about the possible confusion, as for me it's good > to see in the kernel name whether it has or has not support for the SoC > bells/whistles (-mainline/-fslc vs -imx). > > If my assumption is wrong and these drivers *can* be rebased while > retaining compatibility with the binary blobs, than probably #2 and #3 > start to look like something that can be merged (what Daiane said also). Some features can be forward-ported but this is another possible fork to be started, I won't commit to this myself at this moment. -- 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