Re: i.MX 3.10.31-1.1.0_beta release - community feedback requested

[John Weber <rjohnweber@gmail.com>]

Hi Otavio,

On 8/19/14, 3:00 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Lauren Post <Lauren.Post@freescale.com> wrote:
> ...
>> - Soon 3.10.17 and 3.10.31 graphics will be  independent from kernel and would be able to be mixed with each kernel  meaning you could use 3.10.31 kernel with v4 graphics (3.10.17)
> This is a great step in the right direction. So this alleviate part of
> the trouble we have across vendors. So is it going to be done for the
> 3.10.31 GA? or still for the Beta?
>
> What about the VPU? Is 3.10.31 VPU packages compatible with 3.10.17?
>
>> - Eric's point about upgraded proprietary packages is a good one in that our next chance to update them will only be the 3.10.31 GA release so bugs reported earlier help us get these fixed for GA.
> Eric concern, in my understanding, is about the ABI between the binary
> blobs and the compatibility against kernel releases.
>
> What has changed? What is needed to backport?
>
>> - There is a higher chance of getting bugs fixed NOW for GA then after GA. Please submit bugs via bugzilla and forward me so I can forward to the teams to investigate.
> Please subscribe to the Bugzilla so I can assign the current issues to
> your account. This easy tracking of reported issues.
>
>> - Everything for 3.10.31-1.1.0_beta is public on our external git - http://git.freescale.com/ and you can  build using our release layer on top of daisy http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/fsl-arm-yocto-bsp.git/tree/README?h=imx-3.10.31-1.1.0_beta  Try it before making a final decision.   Our patches will not be upstreamed until after our field trial concludes this week.
> So folks, one question remain open:
>
> Considering we go with option 2, as seem most people prefer, what to
> do regarding the non-updated boards in meta-fsl-arm-extra?
>
I am for Option 1, though I see Lauren's point concerning the chances of getting 
bugs fixed before the release of GA if the kernels are being adopted and tested 
by the community prior to release.  I think this will happen as a matter of 
course if improvements are made.  Let developers work with master-next if they 
want to work with 3.10.31.

I only think that a handful of -extra boards adopting 3.10.31, those currently 
supporting 3.10.17, before 1.7 lockdown.  If updates to the proprietary packages 
break 3.10.17, you'll get a lot of broken machines in the stable release, with a 
kernel that is beta quality.

One comment on the relative quality of beta vs. GA releases.  I found that 
3.10.17_beta had a number of issues that were fixed in GA.  Just my experience.

John