From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id ADE98E0043F; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:11:22 -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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from smtp.webfaction.com (mail6.webfaction.com [74.55.86.74]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A32E00342 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (c-68-38-40-177.hsd1.nj.comcast.net [68.38.40.177]) by smtp.webfaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6404D20F1767 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 19:11:10 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53B4594C.8090801@mindchasers.com> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 15:11:08 -0400 From: Bob Cochran User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org References: <53B4290C.7010306@mindchasers.com> In-Reply-To: <53B4290C.7010306@mindchasers.com> Subject: Re: Notes about meta-fsl-ppc and QorIQ development for BSP Community meeting.... 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 19:11:22 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 07/02/2014 11:45 AM, Bob Cochran wrote: > Dear FSL Community BSP Members: > > Below are some notes & thoughts on improving the software development > experience for FSL QorIQ customers: > > Please keep in mind that I am working with a QorIQ Power(pc) device. I > realize that the overall process is complicated by the fact that there > is FSL intellectual property involved. > > > Some Background (to the best of my knowledge): > > FSL issues a single QorIQ SDK approximately every 6 months that > addresses basically all QorIQ devices. The SDK is integrated with Yocto > and uses bitbake / poky to generate the SDK image, which includes > uImage, a dtb file, and a rootfs. > > Up until recently, QorIQ devices were Power only. Now they include ARM > cores, too. > > FSL maintains a meta-fsl-ppc repo on the Yocto project and has recently > submitted patches to it to bring it in sync with SDK1.6. However, as > noted by Otavio in a reply email to Ting Liu on 7/2, the patches were > submitted without documentation. > > The meta-fsl-ppc repo along with other public meta layers on Yocto and > OE is not sufficient for reproducing a complete build since there is an > additional required layer: meta-fsl-networking. > > A meta-fsl-networking repo can be found in the FSL public git site > (http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/ppc/sdk/meta-fsl-networking.git/), but > this is stale. > > The Linux kernel in the SDK is customized / heavily patched. There is > an FSL Linux repo on the FSL public GIT site > (http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/ppc/sdk/linux.git/), but it's not > clear to me what process is used when patching it (most source files are > stale, but there is an sdk1.6 zip file present in the tree). > > There is no mailing list associated with the FSL public GIT site. There > is also no bug reporting system associated with the FSL public GIT site. > > As far as I know, if I find a bug in the SDK, the process to report it > to FSL developers is to submit a service request (SR) > (https://www.freescale.com/webapp/servicerequest.create_SR.framework). > This is a private one-to-one system, so others don't benefit directly > when an SR is submitted and / or resolved. > > > ***** end of background ****** > > > I believe there is room for improvement in this process. > > Perhaps most importantly today is that I am not aware of a statement by > Freescale on how their QorIQ customers should make use of the Yocto > project (repos, mail list, bugzilla, etc.) and FSL public GIT trees > during development. In some ways, they are more of a hindrance than > help because they only seem to cause confusion (for me). Since Freescale developers monitor the meta-freescale mailing list, is it acceptable to post any question or issue about FSL SDK SW (considering it's built with poky / bitbake)? If there are intellectual property issues with this, then what are the guidelines to using the meta-freescale list? I have noticed in the past some non-trivial QorIQ DPAA questions being asked on this board, but I have not seen a response by Freescale developers. I have wondered whether the questions were ignored or answered privately. > > For example, as future patches appear in the meta-fsl-ppc repo, will > they be for setting the stage for SDK1.7 or to fix an SDK1.6 bug? And > even if I knew this, what other patches might be required in repos that > aren't part of the Yocto project? > > I look forward to working together to create / document a system that > enables Freescale (QorIQ) developers to work as a community to bring > robust FSL-based networking products to market faster. > > Thank you, > > Bob