From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 15:08:25 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/8] firmware-imx: bump to version 7.5 In-Reply-To: <6f639664-4b81-033c-fa68-44d48e0a347f@mind.be> References: <20180725150149.30774-1-gary.bisson@boundarydevices.com> <20180725150149.30774-2-gary.bisson@boundarydevices.com> <6f639664-4b81-033c-fa68-44d48e0a347f@mind.be> Message-ID: <20180729150825.76f085c1@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 23:53:44 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > On 25-07-18 17:01, Gary Bisson wrote: > > This new package includes new binaries for i.MX8QXP. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gary Bisson > > I've applied this patch to master, the rest is changes requested. I don't know if we have been clear enough with Gary about what changes we want. Do we want to stay with a virtual package ? If so, what should be the name of the virtual package vs. the name of the package for the "old" i.MX VPUs ? On my side, while I agree that imx-vpu-cnm violates the rule of "we name packages like their upstream name", I believe this is a violation that is acceptable because the naming chosen by Gary is the one that is the easiest to understand and the most obvious: imx-vpu is the virtual package, imx-vpu-hantro and imx-vpu-cnm are the providers. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com