Lastest Patches

Lastest Patches

[Cooper Jr., Franklin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 996 bytes --]

I am not in favor for some of these new namespace changes for legacy recipes. There are a lot of history behind those recipes names (arago-classic) including the PSP version. Old documentation also refer to that PSP release http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/DaVinci_PSP_03.21.00.04_Release_Notes

Ex
u-boot-am180x: modify am180x specific version to use new namespace feature

--- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2010.12-psp03.21.00.04.sdk.bb

+++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-am180x_2010.12.bb


I don't have a problem with adding the machine name to the recipe especially if COMPATIBLE_MACHINE is set for only one machine.

Also changing the ti33x PREFERRED_PROVIDER to a kernel that is still being developed (not released) is another problem.

Ex:

ti33x: switch default preference to ti-staging tree

PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-ti-staging"


Regards,
Franklin Cooper Jr.
Texas Instruments
Application Engineer
fcooper@ti.com<mailto:fcooper@ti.com>


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3811 bytes --]

Re: Lastest Patches

[Maupin, Chase]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1745 bytes --]


From: meta-ti-bounces@yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-ti-bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Cooper Jr., Franklin
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:50 AM
To: Dmytriyenko, Denys
Cc: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
Subject: [meta-ti] Lastest Patches

I am not in favor for some of these new namespace changes for legacy recipes. There are a lot of history behind those recipes names (arago-classic) including the PSP version. Old documentation also refer to that PSP release http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/DaVinci_PSP_03.21.00.04_Release_Notes

Ex
u-boot-am180x: modify am180x specific version to use new namespace feature

--- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2010.12-psp03.21.00.04.sdk.bb

+++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-am180x_2010.12.bb



[CEM] So is your opposition the removal of the PSP version?  Sounds like we need an alignment on “release” recipe names.


I don’t have a problem with adding the machine name to the recipe especially if COMPATIBLE_MACHINE is set for only one machine.

Also changing the ti33x PREFERRED_PROVIDER to a kernel that is still being developed (not released) is another problem.

Ex:

ti33x: switch default preference to ti-staging tree

PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-ti-staging"



[CEM] As Denys pointed out the arago.conf sets this to the old recipe for now while using an Arago distribution.  Making the default point to the kernel being developed makes it easy for people to work with that kernel and provide feedback.  Is you issue that they may not set their build to use the older kernel (i.e. not using Arago distro) and encounter issues?


Regards,
Franklin Cooper Jr.
Texas Instruments
Application Engineer
fcooper@ti.com<mailto:fcooper@ti.com>


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5950 bytes --]

Re: Lastest Patches

[Cooper Jr., Franklin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2488 bytes --]



From: Maupin, Chase
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:04 AM
To: Cooper Jr., Franklin; Dmytriyenko, Denys
Cc: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
Subject: RE: Lastest Patches



From: meta-ti-bounces@yoctoproject.org<mailto:meta-ti-bounces@yoctoproject.org> [mailto:meta-ti-bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Cooper Jr., Franklin
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:50 AM
To: Dmytriyenko, Denys
Cc: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org<mailto:meta-ti@yoctoproject.org>
Subject: [meta-ti] Lastest Patches

I am not in favor for some of these new namespace changes for legacy recipes. There are a lot of history behind those recipes names (arago-classic) including the PSP version. Old documentation also refer to that PSP release http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/DaVinci_PSP_03.21.00.04_Release_Notes

Ex
u-boot-am180x: modify am180x specific version to use new namespace feature

--- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2010.12-psp03.21.00.04.sdk.bb

+++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-am180x_2010.12.bb



[CEM] So is your opposition the removal of the PSP version?  Sounds like we need an alignment on "release" recipe names.



FC: Correct. I believe we are aligned for future recipes based on the super long email thread we recently had :). But I don't think those changes should apply to these older recipes.

I don't have a problem with adding the machine name to the recipe especially if COMPATIBLE_MACHINE is set for only one machine.

Also changing the ti33x PREFERRED_PROVIDER to a kernel that is still being developed (not released) is another problem.

Ex:

ti33x: switch default preference to ti-staging tree

PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-ti-staging"



[CEM] As Denys pointed out the arago.conf sets this to the old recipe for now while using an Arago distribution.  Making the default point to the kernel being developed makes it easy for people to work with that kernel and provide feedback.  Is you issue that they may not set their build to use the older kernel (i.e. not using Arago distro) and encounter issues?



FC: So I did notice that Denys didn't make similar changes in meta-arago so for Arago distributions users nothing has changed. While meta-ti users weren't using our official kernel in the first place. So to answer your question yes. But it doesn't affect me so I was just pointing it out for others.


Regards,
Franklin Cooper Jr.
Texas Instruments
Application Engineer
fcooper@ti.com<mailto:fcooper@ti.com>


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8260 bytes --]

Re: Lastest Patches

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

Ouch, can we do a proper quoting on public mailing lists, please? I do realise 
I am top-posting here, but below looks like a one continuous blob of text to 
me. I even think if each of your replies had been top-posted, it would have 
looked much better than it is now... :) And "lastest", really? :)

Anyway, jokes aside, I'll try to reply to individual posts separately.

-- 
Denys


On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:17:41AM -0400, Cooper Jr., Franklin wrote:
>     
> 
>     
> 
>    From: Maupin, Chase
>    Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:04 AM
>    To: Cooper Jr., Franklin; Dmytriyenko, Denys
>    Cc: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
>    Subject: RE: Lastest Patches
> 
>     
> 
>     
> 
>     
> 
>    From: meta-ti-bounces@yoctoproject.org
>    [mailto:meta-ti-bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Cooper Jr.,
>    Franklin
>    Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:50 AM
>    To: Dmytriyenko, Denys
>    Cc: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
>    Subject: [meta-ti] Lastest Patches
> 
>     
> 
>    I am not in favor for some of these new namespace changes for legacy
>    recipes. There are a lot of history behind those recipes names
>    (arago-classic) including the PSP version. Old documentation also refer to
>    that PSP release
>    http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/DaVinci_PSP_03.21.00.04_Release_Notes
> 
>    Ex
> 
>    u-boot-am180x: modify am180x specific version to use new namespace feature
> 
>    --- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2010.12-psp03.21.00.04.sdk.bb
> 
>    +++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-am180x_2010.12.bb
> 
>     
> 
>    [CEM] So is your opposition the removal of the PSP version?  Sounds like
>    we need an alignment on "release" recipe names.
> 
>     
> 
>    FC: Correct. I believe we are aligned for future recipes based on the
>    super long email thread we recently had J. But I don't think those changes
>    should apply to these older recipes.
> 
>     
> 
>    I don't have a problem with adding the machine name to the recipe
>    especially if COMPATIBLE_MACHINE is set for only one machine.
> 
>     
> 
>    Also changing the ti33x PREFERRED_PROVIDER to a kernel that is still being
>    developed (not released) is another problem.
> 
>    Ex:
> 
>    ti33x: switch default preference to ti-staging tree
> 
>    PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-ti-staging"
> 
>     
> 
>    [CEM] As Denys pointed out the arago.conf sets this to the old recipe for
>    now while using an Arago distribution.  Making the default point to the
>    kernel being developed makes it easy for people to work with that kernel
>    and provide feedback.  Is you issue that they may not set their build to
>    use the older kernel (i.e. not using Arago distro) and encounter issues?
> 
>     
> 
>    FC: So I did notice that Denys didn't make similar changes in meta-arago
>    so for Arago distributions users nothing has changed. While meta-ti users
>    weren't using our official kernel in the first place. So to answer your
>    question yes. But it doesn't affect me so I was just pointing it out for
>    others.
> 
>     
> 
>     
> 
>    Regards,
> 
>    Franklin Cooper Jr.
> 
>    Texas Instruments
> 
>    Application Engineer
> 
>    fcooper@ti.com
> 
>     

Re: Lastest Patches

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

Franklin,

I put this discussion on back-burner for a bit, to let the dust settle and to 
gather some thoughts...


On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 01:50:22PM +0000, Cooper Jr., Franklin wrote:
> I am not in favor for some of these new namespace changes for legacy 
> recipes. There are a lot of history behind those recipes names 
> (arago-classic) including the PSP version. Old documentation also refer to 
> that PSP release 
> http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/DaVinci_PSP_03.21.00.04_Release_Notes
> 
> Ex
> u-boot-am180x: modify am180x specific version to use new namespace feature
> 
> --- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2010.12-psp03.21.00.04.sdk.bb
> 
> +++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-am180x_2010.12.bb
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with adding the machine name to the recipe especially 
> if COMPATIBLE_MACHINE is set for only one machine.

I understand your position here. I happened to have originally introduced 
those -psp version suffixes to the recipes several years ago. These days this 
concept is no longer relevant... Let me list few reasons:

1. The internal org has changed, hence the naming - new recipes don't have 
this same suffix.
2. Other recipes also come from different sources and don't have -psp suffix.
3. The recipe you mentioned above for am180x happens to be the only one left 
with this suffix - time to unify versioning schema.
4. Yocto principles and the concept of "rolling" releases - meaning not having 
multiple versions of the same recipe around and using SCM for historic 
purposes, not the metadata. In other words - there are git tags, branches and 
even linear history for past versions, so no need to cling to them in the 
recipes. That means if we have a newer u-boot available for am180x that works, 
we would remove the 2010.12 as being very old one, PSP or not.
5. With the SoC/machine in the recipe name, there's no worry to have the name 
collision between u-boot_2010.12 for am180x and the same u-boot version for 
another machine, so no need to keep the -psp versioning suffix for the purpose 
of unique version.
6. The PSP version corresponding to that release is still recorded inside the 
recipe, as a tag/SRCREV.
7. I know you need to set PSPREL variable for the SDK - we can still do that 
in meta-arago as a bbappend.


> Also changing the ti33x PREFERRED_PROVIDER to a kernel that is still being 
> developed (not released) is another problem.
> 
> Ex:
> 
> ti33x: switch default preference to ti-staging tree
> 
> PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-ti-staging"

As Chase mentioned, this is gearing up for the release next month and we need 
as many people to start using and testing it, as possible, at least within 
meta-ti.
Again, for SDK stable releases, it can be set to an older 3.2 version - it's 
just a matter of setting PREFERRED_PROVIDER and PREFERRED_VERSION accordingly.

-- 
Denys