Is there any point in keeping linux-imx.inc?

Is there any point in keeping linux-imx.inc?

[Ernst Sjöstrand]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 333 bytes --]

Hi,

I'm trying to figure out the IMX/FSCL kernel branches and realized that
linux-fscl-imx and linux-imx is the same thing.
All the code available in
http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/linux-imx.git
is also available in
https://github.com/Freescale/linux-fslc

Reduce duplication and confusion?

Regards
//Ernst

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 588 bytes --]

Re: Is there any point in keeping linux-imx.inc?

[Richard Röjfors]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Ernst Sjöstrand <ernstp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm trying to figure out the IMX/FSCL kernel branches and realized that
> linux-fscl-imx and linux-imx is the same thing.

I don't realise the same thing.

My view is:
-fslc- gets more stuff merged from upstreams and additional fixes brought in.

linux-imx is FSL/NXP's slowly progressing tree. Why are they not
trying to go mainline instead?

--Richard

Re: Is there any point in keeping linux-imx.inc?

[Ernst Sjöstrand]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 994 bytes --]

Hi,

well I'm just saying that
linux-fscl-imx is using the exact same code (SHA1:s even I would say!) as
linux-imx,
it's the same code in http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/linux-imx
as in
https://github.com/Freescale/linux-fslc/tree/4.1-2.0.x-imx

So there's no point having any reference to http://git.freescale.com,
and linux-fscl-imx.* makes linux-imx.inc and linux-imx_4.1.15.bb redundant.

Regards
//Ernst

2016-12-16 11:57 GMT+01:00 Richard Röjfors <richard.rojfors@gmail.com>:

> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Ernst Sjöstrand <ernstp@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm trying to figure out the IMX/FSCL kernel branches and realized that
> > linux-fscl-imx and linux-imx is the same thing.
>
> I don't realise the same thing.
>
> My view is:
> -fslc- gets more stuff merged from upstreams and additional fixes brought
> in.
>
> linux-imx is FSL/NXP's slowly progressing tree. Why are they not
> trying to go mainline instead?
>
> --Richard
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1787 bytes --]

Re: Is there any point in keeping linux-imx.inc?

[Gary Bisson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 956 bytes --]

Hi Ernst,

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Ernst Sjöstrand <ernstp@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> well I'm just saying that
> linux-fscl-imx is using the exact same code (SHA1:s even I would say!) as
> linux-imx,
> it's the same code in http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/linux-imx
> as in
> https://github.com/Freescale/linux-fslc/tree/4.1-2.0.x-imx
>

You are mistaken, it really isn't the same tree. First the community tree
(fslc) includes patches for other vendors than NXP and therefore supports
more boards.

It also includes all the security updates from the mainline stable 4.1
branch which is why NXP kernel is 4.1.15 whereas the fslc is, as of today,
4.1.35.
http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/linux-imx.git/tree/Makefile?id=rel_imx_4.1.15_2.0.0_ga#n3
https://github.com/Freescale/linux-fslc/blob/4.1-2.0.x-imx/Makefile#L3

Please make a diff of the two trees and you'll see by yourself.

Regards,
Gary

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1848 bytes --]

Re: Is there any point in keeping linux-imx.inc?

[Ernst Sjöstrand]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3455 bytes --]

Hi,

right, fslc has many extra branches. But everything in linux-imx from
freescale.com is in fslc also!

git.freescale.com is only used for linux-imx_4.1.15 which uses
b63f3f52cb393e3287352cf63f0caef31a33ab63 and that is also available in
github.com/Freescale/linux-fslc.
So you have everything at GitHub already, you could simplify things and
only reference a single repository instead.

Regards
//Ernst

(Also, note:
The 4.1-2.0.x-imx branch on Github vs. freescale.com differ very little,
there's the security merge (which everyone should use?!?!) and 29 commits
which only deal with a few things, so I really don't see any point in
having both available.
Here's the list that differ:
git log --oneline  --first-parent
linux-imx/4.1-2.0.x-imx..linux-fscl/4.1-2.0.x-imx
176c482 net: fec: Call swap_buffer() prior to IP header alignment
d756853 Merge tag 'v4.1.35' into 4.1-2.0.x-imx
3400244 net: fec: align IP
e02ebf2 net: fec: enable RACC on imx6ul
c9a9698 net: fec: remove QUIRK_HAS_RACC from i.mx27
ed4cba2 net: fec: remove QUIRK_HAS_RACC from i.mx25
1623965 serial: imx: reduce irq-latency after rx overflow
bf2698a rfkill-gpio: fix clk on/off
0413e28 rfkill-gpio: fix active levels which automatically invert when
active low
8ea61b8 rfkill-gpio: add devicetree support
aed9a42 ARM: dts: imx7s-warp: Enable BT_REG_ON
955eb6f ARM: dts: imx7s-warp: Add Wifi support
d120646 ARM: dts: imx7s-warp: Move memory node
82b8823 ARM: dts: imx7s-warp: Enable crypto
e0a52d3 ARM: dts: warp7: Rename the dts file
9283aff ARM: imx_v7_defconfig: Add simple card driver support
48186c5 sgtl5000.c: HACK, defer probe when I2C not yet running
4759947 ARM: dts: imx7d-warp: Add audio support
fe4d4c7 ARM: dts: imx7d: Add #sound-dai-cells into sai nodes
94de584 ARM: dts: imx7d-warp: Add BC3770 support.
8791ec9 ARM: dts: imx7d-warp: Enable bluetooth device
99059df ARM: dts: imx7d-warp: Add User Button support
6f50d90 ARM: dts: imx7d-warp: Add NFC support
68aafc4 ARM: dts: imx7d-warp: Add support for precision altimeter
cacc687 ARM: dts: imx7d-warp: Add support for accelerometer and magnetometer
ff609f7 ARM: dts: imx7d-warp: Add I2C4 device node, princtrl
b21d979 of: Allow NXP 4.1 kernel to allocate memory on 2GiB RAM boards
67bebf9 ARM: dts: imx7d-warp: Add initial support
a7f8582 Merge tag 'v4.1.33' into 4.1-2.0.x-imx


2016-12-16 16:38 GMT+01:00 Gary Bisson <gary.bisson@boundarydevices.com>:

> Hi Ernst,
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Ernst Sjöstrand <ernstp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> well I'm just saying that
>> linux-fscl-imx is using the exact same code (SHA1:s even I would say!) as
>> linux-imx,
>> it's the same code in http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/linux-imx
>> as in
>> https://github.com/Freescale/linux-fslc/tree/4.1-2.0.x-imx
>>
>
> You are mistaken, it really isn't the same tree. First the community tree
> (fslc) includes patches for other vendors than NXP and therefore supports
> more boards.
>
> It also includes all the security updates from the mainline stable 4.1
> branch which is why NXP kernel is 4.1.15 whereas the fslc is, as of today,
> 4.1.35.
> http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/linux-imx.git/
> tree/Makefile?id=rel_imx_4.1.15_2.0.0_ga#n3
> https://github.com/Freescale/linux-fslc/blob/4.1-2.0.x-imx/Makefile#L3
>
> Please make a diff of the two trees and you'll see by yourself.
>
> Regards,
> Gary
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5062 bytes --]

Re: Is there any point in keeping linux-imx.inc?

[Otavio Salvador]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Ernst Sjöstrand <ernstp@gmail.com> wrote:
> right, fslc has many extra branches. But everything in linux-imx from
> freescale.com is in fslc also!
>
> git.freescale.com is only used for linux-imx_4.1.15 which uses
> b63f3f52cb393e3287352cf63f0caef31a33ab63 and that is also available in
> github.com/Freescale/linux-fslc.
> So you have everything at GitHub already, you could simplify things and only
> reference a single repository instead.

You are mixing apples and oranges here.

As linux-fslc does merge the linux-imx repository it is obvious the
same revisions will be available on both. This does not imply it is
the same thing.

The linux-imx is controlled by NXP and only NXP kernel and BSP teams
can commit to those branches. The linux-fslc is controlled by the
community and is more agile.

The point of using the linux-imx as SRC_URI is to make clear for users
where it is basing the code from. This is a good practice and also
guarantee that by no means we can use a revision not available at NXP
server.

If you ask me, I would say to focus on linux-fslc as it includes
security and bugfixes on top of the original release. But this is a
decision you need to take.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750