From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 36511E00803; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:52:29 -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=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (rjohnweber[at]gmail.com) * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [209.85.216.171 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 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-qc0-f171.google.com (mail-qc0-f171.google.com [209.85.216.171]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28CBE00572 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id x3so4646423qcv.30 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:52:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wq81GUWC07IIJeudnFprLH88ROkvWGFJqx/SNwnJLZU=; b=UMjQaCJKdghh/XgxSn7bPTzO+ATa3YqYGCPaeTarQeE8OgJkGQlBTpb6I2xYpnB8rv f/ATsXTJ/f723knPokqN0Py3uwRnoOVy2bCQDLdCmr+WgK78ofAPrXahgKIL5JYg+6W4 2hAFkxvpTbsMo+IC8B1VPfBR7XRgQ8yq7rcQutbyB07MJL6QKIdUHjg6+aDYTQkg/Pcs XpEf9U3I717shRzmjSL4RkLWsQ1wLI2v8OjTNWFQDSMveChr0TtBEgzVXqypCFEGGO/2 f2AFENfYhLDcG77lY99Mx8odu7obMqE3kU15WFluxF7hfgw2s48FytsSQ9pJ7NhHHo21 4McQ== X-Received: by 10.224.111.193 with SMTP id t1mr38846495qap.103.1409514740096; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from goober-2.local ([75.76.45.160]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e64sm9059185qgd.37.2014.08.31.12.52.19 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:52:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54037CF3.8090204@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:52:19 -0500 From: John Weber User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org References: <1409166432-9582-1-git-send-email-lauren.post@freescale.com> <1409166432-9582-12-git-send-email-lauren.post@freescale.com> <2aa4ccc8204247ccaae163e648b206b4@CY1PR0301MB0700.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 11/14] imx-vpu: Upgrade to 3.10.31-1.1.0 Beta 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: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 19:52:29 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 8/31/14, 2:15 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Lauren Post wrote: >> We prefer this to match our BSP version not internal version. > I certainly prefer it to map to the real version; we had same > situation on the MM modules and we now overcome it, could we do > another small step in the right direction? > I've been following the comments from Otavio and Daiane, and wanted to offer my opinion here, for what it is worth. My understanding is that you have a version for the VPU libaries (and others) that you use internally (in this case 5.4.26), but the bb file you want to plug into the fsl-community-bsp is named for a tested kernel version (in this case, 3.10.31_1.1.0). However, when a user starts an application with those libraries (gst-launch for example, using a vpuenc element), they would see your internal version number pop up. For example: vpuenc versions :) plugin: 3.0.11 wrapper: 1.0.46(VPUWRAPPER_ARM_LINUX Build on Aug 30 2014 15:33:08) vpulib: 5.4.23 firmware: 3.1.1.46056 I contend that this could cause some confusion, don't you? They are including/building an OE package with one version, but their system reports something different, and they have to then resolve the two different versions. Another reason to consider going a different path is that naming them after a kernel release (as implied by the 3.10.31_1.1.0 name), implies (to me) that these are only tested and will work on the corresponding kernel version. They might not always be the case, if there are no changes to the programming interfaces. John