Re: Please review the proposal of FSL Yocto layers reorg

["Eric Bénard" <eric@eukrea.com>]

Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:59:41 +0000,
McClintock Matthew-B29882 <B29882@freescale.com> a écrit :

> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> > Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:52:02 +0000,
> > McClintock Matthew-B29882 <B29882@freescale.com> a écrit :
> >> I think you misinterpreted the intent of my statement, the goal is to
> >> provide the best support we can for the open source versions and get
> >> feedback as well. However, specifically stating what will be done for
> >> each release, branch, layer, etc is not something that is a
> >> deliverable on the open source end and I don't see it happening soon.
> >> That being said, there is no malicious intent and supporting upstream
> >> and making it work as well as possible is the ultimate goal so our SDK
> >> release requires less effort and work.
> >>
> > I may have misinterpreted your statement but it seems you make a
> > difference between the open source version and the SDK release : isn't
> > that roughly the same thing when we talk of meta-fsl-* where the SDK
> > release can be seen as a snapshots of the opensource stable branch at
> > the date of the release ? If not what are the differences ?
> 
> They *should* be the same. But for SDK releases sometimes we skip
> entire Yocto releases (e.g. danny). SDK versions *may* contain
> slightly different versions. This comes into play more with oe-core
> where we don't have official control and we need to include a specific
> fix for the SDK. Layers themselves tend to have less reason to deviate
> from the upstream versions since we control both sides so they
> *should* be the same.
> 
> > Also, do you plan to sync the public accessible git tree only when you
> > do a release or will they get the patches in "realtime" ?
> 
> These should go in real time esp. if we are working on the current
> release (e.g. master branch). Right now we are still using denzil
> until the May release which will be based on what is now master.
> 
understood, thanks for the details.

One last thing while at it : last year, Linaro's FSL team told me they
were about to release an updated kernel for i.MX53 (with updated GPU
closed source libraries & drivers as they had sources for that under
NDA - the userspace binaries are packed into an hwpack named something
like hwpack_linaro-lt-mx5_YYYYMMDD_armel_supported.tar.gz ).
In the end that was never made public but from what I understood they
delivered the sources to Freescale : are there any plan to release
these versions (even if that's not officialy supported by Freescale SDK
and marked as experimental) to meta-fsl-arm so that we can update i.MX53
based designs to more recent kernel than 2.6.35 and still use the GPU ?

Thanks,
Eric