From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Olivain Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 22:22:08 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] package/imx-sc-firmware: bump to version 1.2.1 In-Reply-To: References: <20191218130429.847805-1-juju@cotds.org> <94f6389ba7bd24a86cdec3e8295fddad@cotds.org> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Fabio, All, On 2019-12-18 14:27, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:23 AM Julien Olivain wrote: > >> As per: >> https://source.codeaurora.org/external/imx/meta-fsl-bsp-release/tree/imx/meta-bsp/recipes-bsp/imx-sc-firmware?h=sumo-4.14.98-2.0.0_ga >> >> For 4.14.98_2.0.0_ga, imx-sc-firmware is 1.2.1. >> imx-sc-firmware is 1.2.2 is for 4.14.98_2.2.0. >> >> Since the rest of the components are on 4.14.98_2.0.0_ga, I would >> really >> suggest 1.2.1. > > Correct, the NXP Release Notes on the web is for 4.14.98_2.2.0. > > So using 1.2.1 is fine then. > > Shouldn't IMX_SC_FIRMWARE_VERSION be passed via board defconfig > instead? > > Currently we are forcing the same IMX_SC_FIRMWARE_VERSION for all imx8 > boards, which is not ideal because we may have imx8 boards running > 4.14.78, others 4.14.98, others 4.19.35, etc > > We cannot force all of them to be using the same kernel versions, so I > think we should allow the possibility to pass IMX_SC_FIRMWARE_VERSION > via board defconfig. > > What do you think? I agree with you that we can't really force a single version for all boards. Exposing a choice of version (like for Kernel, U-Boot, ATF) seems a good trade-of (this is what I had in mind in [1]). For i.MX packages, several packages are in that case: I think mainly about imx-sc-firmware, firmware-imx and imx-gpu-viv. The only problem I see right now is that from one version to another, the build recipe might slightly change. We saw that recently in [2]. This means we can't have a single recipe and a free _CUSTOM_VERSION config option. What about having a KConfig "choice" list of few supported versions, also showing NXP BSP name, to help i.MX defconfig maintainers to select the right version ? That would allow the package recipe to adjust commands for a given version. For example, for the imx-sc-firmware, the list of choices would be: - 1.1.4 (4.14.78_1.0.0) - 1.2.1 (4.14.98_2.0.0) - 1.2.2 (4.19.35_1.0.0) - 1.2.7.1 (4.19.35_1.1.0) What do you think about this approach? If you agree, I could give a try to write patches for imx-sc-firmware package, to see how it goes... > Thanks Best regards, Julien. [1] http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2019-December/268135.html [2] http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2019-December/269280.html