imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Mauro Ziliani]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 213 bytes --]

Hi all.

I'm porting and old system based on Krogoth to Dunfell.

In Krogoth the kernel was linux-imx.

Now in Dunfell which is the right kernel?

linux-fslc o linux-fslc-imx?


Thanks all

    MZ


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 641 bytes --]

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Andrey Zhizhikin]

Hello Mauro,

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 9:40 AM Mauro Ziliani <mauro@faresoftware.it> wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> I'm porting and old system based on Krogoth to Dunfell.
>
> In Krogoth the kernel was linux-imx.
>
> Now in Dunfell which is the right kernel?

Depends on what you define as "right". :)

If you build any`fsl-` distro, then you should use either `linux-imx`
of `linux-fslc-imx` kernel. If you rather opt for any of `fslc-`
distro, then the kernel provider would be set to `linux-fslc`.

>
> linux-fslc o linux-fslc-imx?

- `linux-fslc` is an upstream kernel (from stable korg), which has few
patches not upstreamed yet
- `linux-fslc-imx` is NXP kernel with latest patch level applied from
stable korg. This is based on the NXP release (2.1.0 in [dunfell]),
and then maintained in terms of security fixes applied in LTS branch.
- `linux-imx` is a "pure" NXP kernel, which is provided as a part of
their release(s). Current NXP release version present on the [dunfell]
branch is 2.1.0

>
>
> Thanks all
>
>    MZ
>
>

-- 
Regards,
Andrey.

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Terry Barnaby]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1907 bytes --]

On 25/02/2021 08:47, Andrey Zhizhikin wrote:
> Hello Mauro,
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 9:40 AM Mauro Ziliani <mauro@faresoftware.it> wrote:
>> Hi all.
>>
>> I'm porting and old system based on Krogoth to Dunfell.
>>
>> In Krogoth the kernel was linux-imx.
>>
>> Now in Dunfell which is the right kernel?
> Depends on what you define as "right". :)
>
> If you build any`fsl-` distro, then you should use either `linux-imx`
> of `linux-fslc-imx` kernel. If you rather opt for any of `fslc-`
> distro, then the kernel provider would be set to `linux-fslc`.
>
>> linux-fslc o linux-fslc-imx?
> - `linux-fslc` is an upstream kernel (from stable korg), which has few
> patches not upstreamed yet
> - `linux-fslc-imx` is NXP kernel with latest patch level applied from
> stable korg. This is based on the NXP release (2.1.0 in [dunfell]),
> and then maintained in terms of security fixes applied in LTS branch.
> - `linux-imx` is a "pure" NXP kernel, which is provided as a part of
> their release(s). Current NXP release version present on the [dunfell]
> branch is 2.1.0
>
>>
>> Thanks all
>>
>>     MZ
>>
>>
>
> 
>
For a novice to NXP Freescale builds, what setup would you recommend as 
a basic test Yocto build for a Wandboard IMX6 dual lite system in order 
to test the performance of the hardware video processing system using 
gstreamer*imx (VPU etc) ?

Would fslc-x11 or fslc-xwayland distro with the linux-fslc-imx kernel be 
the best approach or would some fsl-* distro with the linux-imx kernel 
be the best approach ?

The standard Wandboard build uses linux-fslc which does not seem to 
support the imx hardware features and so I am trying to build a suitable 
test platform but having no luck trying various build combinations that 
either wont build or wont run properly in various ways, so any pointers 
would be gratefully received !

Terry


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2960 bytes --]

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Andrey Zhizhikin]

Hello Terry,

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:01 AM Terry Barnaby <terry@beam.ltd.uk> wrote:
>
>
> For a novice to NXP Freescale builds, what setup would you recommend as a basic test Yocto build for a Wandboard IMX6 dual lite system in order to test the performance of the hardware video processing system using gstreamer*imx (VPU etc) ?

Since I do not have any of the i.MX6 HW and unaware of the state of
VPU support - I can only speak from distro perspective. Anyone who
posses the HW can clarify points from machine perspective here.

>
> Would fslc-x11 or fslc-xwayland distro with the linux-fslc-imx kernel be the best approach or would some fsl-* distro with the linux-imx kernel be the best approach ?

The first recommendation from my side would be: choose the distro
flavor. There are 2 types of distro in the layer: Community and
NXP-based.

1. All distros with `fsl-` prefix are generally NXP-based, and include
packages that NXP supplies as a part of their distribution. When it
comes to kernel and U-Boot support - `linux-imx` and `u-boot-imx`
packages are set as providers of `virtual/kernel` and
`virtual/bootloader` respectively. This automatically means that if
you take any of those distros prefixed with `fsl-` - you would be
building NXP-based distribution. In addition, all packages that are
marked as compatible with this BSP flavor would be included, in your
case that would include the `gstreamer*imx` package.
NOTE: you can switch the kernel provider to `linux-fslc-imx` for this
BSP flavor, which would include the kernel type I described already in
this thread (NXP release 2.1.0 + latest LTS patch level applied).
`linux-fslc` cannot be set with this type of distro.

2. All distros with `fslc-` prefix are Community-based distros, which
aims to include the upstream OSS packages and avoid using packages
which has "Proprietary" license types in them. Kernel provider is set
to `linux-fslc`, U-Boot provider is set to `u-boot-fslc`. As for the
`gstreamer*imx` - I do not know if the compatibility set in the recipe
would allow it to be included in this type of distro.
NOTE: in this type of distro - only `linux-fslc` can be used as kernel provider.

>
> The standard Wandboard build uses linux-fslc which does not seem to support the imx hardware features and so I am trying to build a suitable test platform but having no luck trying various build combinations that either wont build or wont run properly in various ways, so any pointers would be gratefully received !

This means that Wandboard sets IMX_DEFAULT_BSP = "mainline" somewhere
in its machine configuration, which targets the Community-based
distribution. You can try to find where it is set and change it to
IMX_DEFAULT_BSP = "nxp" to target NXP-based distro, and then use any
of `fsl-` prefixed configuration files on your DISTRO variable.

What you will get with this setup is then NXP-based distribution, but
since as I said above I do not have any i.MX6 HW - I cannot guarantee
that this setup would be 100% operable. Also in this case you would
opt-in to use NXP distribution, so you should watch for licensing
terms.

>
> Terry
>
>

--
Regards,
Andrey.

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Terry Barnaby]

On 25/02/2021 09:29, Andrey Zhizhikin wrote:
> Hello Terry,
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:01 AM Terry Barnaby <terry@beam.ltd.uk> wrote:
>>
>> For a novice to NXP Freescale builds, what setup would you recommend as a basic test Yocto build for a Wandboard IMX6 dual lite system in order to test the performance of the hardware video processing system using gstreamer*imx (VPU etc) ?
> Since I do not have any of the i.MX6 HW and unaware of the state of
> VPU support - I can only speak from distro perspective. Anyone who
> posses the HW can clarify points from machine perspective here.
>
>> Would fslc-x11 or fslc-xwayland distro with the linux-fslc-imx kernel be the best approach or would some fsl-* distro with the linux-imx kernel be the best approach ?
> The first recommendation from my side would be: choose the distro
> flavor. There are 2 types of distro in the layer: Community and
> NXP-based.
>
> 1. All distros with `fsl-` prefix are generally NXP-based, and include
> packages that NXP supplies as a part of their distribution. When it
> comes to kernel and U-Boot support - `linux-imx` and `u-boot-imx`
> packages are set as providers of `virtual/kernel` and
> `virtual/bootloader` respectively. This automatically means that if
> you take any of those distros prefixed with `fsl-` - you would be
> building NXP-based distribution. In addition, all packages that are
> marked as compatible with this BSP flavor would be included, in your
> case that would include the `gstreamer*imx` package.
> NOTE: you can switch the kernel provider to `linux-fslc-imx` for this
> BSP flavor, which would include the kernel type I described already in
> this thread (NXP release 2.1.0 + latest LTS patch level applied).
> `linux-fslc` cannot be set with this type of distro.
>
> 2. All distros with `fslc-` prefix are Community-based distros, which
> aims to include the upstream OSS packages and avoid using packages
> which has "Proprietary" license types in them. Kernel provider is set
> to `linux-fslc`, U-Boot provider is set to `u-boot-fslc`. As for the
> `gstreamer*imx` - I do not know if the compatibility set in the recipe
> would allow it to be included in this type of distro.
> NOTE: in this type of distro - only `linux-fslc` can be used as kernel provider.
>
>> The standard Wandboard build uses linux-fslc which does not seem to support the imx hardware features and so I am trying to build a suitable test platform but having no luck trying various build combinations that either wont build or wont run properly in various ways, so any pointers would be gratefully received !
> This means that Wandboard sets IMX_DEFAULT_BSP = "mainline" somewhere
> in its machine configuration, which targets the Community-based
> distribution. You can try to find where it is set and change it to
> IMX_DEFAULT_BSP = "nxp" to target NXP-based distro, and then use any
> of `fsl-` prefixed configuration files on your DISTRO variable.
>
> What you will get with this setup is then NXP-based distribution, but
> since as I said above I do not have any i.MX6 HW - I cannot guarantee
> that this setup would be 100% operable. Also in this case you would
> opt-in to use NXP distribution, so you should watch for licensing
> terms.
>
>> Terry
>>
>>
> --
> Regards,
> Andrey.

Hi Andrey,

Many thanks for your time and info on this, that is a great help to firm 
up where I should be starting from and which distros are compatible (to 
some degree anyway) with which kernel.

 From what I am seeing I will have to use a NXP fsl-* based distribution 
to support the imx hardware video processing features. I have built such 
a distro with both linux-fslc-imx and limux-imx kernels (I think!) for 
the Wandboard, which boots and runs but the HDMI display was not 
functional. I will persevere looking at that.

Terry

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Otavio Salvador]

Em qui., 25 de fev. de 2021 às 06:53, Terry Barnaby
<terry@beam.ltd.uk> escreveu:
>  From what I am seeing I will have to use a NXP fsl-* based distribution
> to support the imx hardware video processing features. I have built such
> a distro with both linux-fslc-imx and limux-imx kernels (I think!) for
> the Wandboard, which boots and runs but the HDMI display was not
> functional. I will persevere looking at that.

No, you don't. You can use linux-fslc (mainline) and fslc-* distros as
i.MX6 has full mainline support. At O.S. Systems we have been using
Linux mainline with many customers with great success.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9 9981-7854          Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Terry Barnaby]

On 25/02/2021 11:21, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Em qui., 25 de fev. de 2021 às 06:53, Terry Barnaby
> <terry@beam.ltd.uk> escreveu:
>>   From what I am seeing I will have to use a NXP fsl-* based distribution
>> to support the imx hardware video processing features. I have built such
>> a distro with both linux-fslc-imx and limux-imx kernels (I think!) for
>> the Wandboard, which boots and runs but the HDMI display was not
>> functional. I will persevere looking at that.
> No, you don't. You can use linux-fslc (mainline) and fslc-* distros as
> i.MX6 has full mainline support. At O.S. Systems we have been using
> Linux mainline with many customers with great success.
>
Thanks for the info, I must be getting something wrong then.

If I do, what I think is a standard http://freescale.github.io dunfell 
build, using "MACHINE ??= 'wandboard'", "DISTRO ?= 'fslc-x11'" and add 
IMAGE_INSTALL_append=" gstreamer1.0-plugins-imx" to get the gstreamer 
plugs for the imx video processing hardware support built (they are not 
there by default, this uses linux-fslc), I get an error:

ERROR: Nothing RPROVIDES 'gstreamer1.0-plugins-imx' (but 
/datal3/DartSystems/ds200i-system/fsl-community-bsp/sources/meta-freescale-distro/recipes-fsl/images/fsl-image-multimedia-full.bb 
RDEPENDS on or otherwise requires it)
gstreamer1.0-plugins-imx was skipped: incompatible with machine 
wandboard (not in COMPATIBLE_MACHINE)

If I use an IMX_DEFAULT_BSP="nxp" based build the 
gstreamer1.0-plugins-imx gets built. So what am i doing wrong ?

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Andrey Zhizhikin]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:50 PM Terry Barnaby <terry@beam.ltd.uk> wrote:
>
> On 25/02/2021 11:21, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Em qui., 25 de fev. de 2021 às 06:53, Terry Barnaby
> > <terry@beam.ltd.uk> escreveu:
> >>   From what I am seeing I will have to use a NXP fsl-* based distribution
> >> to support the imx hardware video processing features. I have built such
> >> a distro with both linux-fslc-imx and limux-imx kernels (I think!) for
> >> the Wandboard, which boots and runs but the HDMI display was not
> >> functional. I will persevere looking at that.
> > No, you don't. You can use linux-fslc (mainline) and fslc-* distros as
> > i.MX6 has full mainline support. At O.S. Systems we have been using
> > Linux mainline with many customers with great success.
> >
> Thanks for the info, I must be getting something wrong then.
>
> If I do, what I think is a standard http://freescale.github.io dunfell
> build, using "MACHINE ??= 'wandboard'", "DISTRO ?= 'fslc-x11'" and add
> IMAGE_INSTALL_append=" gstreamer1.0-plugins-imx" to get the gstreamer
> plugs for the imx video processing hardware support built (they are not
> there by default, this uses linux-fslc), I get an error:
>
> ERROR: Nothing RPROVIDES 'gstreamer1.0-plugins-imx' (but
> /datal3/DartSystems/ds200i-system/fsl-community-bsp/sources/meta-freescale-distro/recipes-fsl/images/fsl-image-multimedia-full.bb
> RDEPENDS on or otherwise requires it)
> gstreamer1.0-plugins-imx was skipped: incompatible with machine
> wandboard (not in COMPATIBLE_MACHINE)

This is expected, and actually follows to what I previously said:
gstreamer1.0-plugins-imx package is not compatible with Community BSP
(chosen by setting  IMX_DEFAULT_BSP="mainline").

As Fabio already indicated, gstreamer1.0-plugins-imx should be used
**only** with NXP-based BSP (selected by setting
IMX_DEFAULT_BSP="nxp") as it requires the NXP-specific modifications
in the kernel, which are not upstreamed (and probably would not be).

>
> If I use an IMX_DEFAULT_BSP="nxp" based build the
> gstreamer1.0-plugins-imx gets built. So what am i doing wrong ?
>

This is also expected behavior. Once opted for NXP-based BSP - package
compatibility becomes valid, hence it can be built and installed.

So in a sense - you're not doing anything wrong here. You're changing
the BSP flavor from Community to NXP-based one.

-- 
Regards,
Andrey.

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Bas Mevissen]

On 2021-02-25 12:21, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Em qui., 25 de fev. de 2021 às 06:53, Terry Barnaby
> <terry@beam.ltd.uk> escreveu:
>>  From what I am seeing I will have to use a NXP fsl-* based 
>> distribution
>> to support the imx hardware video processing features. I have built 
>> such
>> a distro with both linux-fslc-imx and limux-imx kernels (I think!) for
>> the Wandboard, which boots and runs but the HDMI display was not
>> functional. I will persevere looking at that.
> 
> No, you don't. You can use linux-fslc (mainline) and fslc-* distros as
> i.MX6 has full mainline support. At O.S. Systems we have been using
> Linux mainline with many customers with great success.
> 

Wouldn't make sense to first evaluate the performance of the platform 
(as Terry plans to do) first on an NXP fsl-* distro? In that case one 
can get direct support from NXP if required. After that, derive your own 
distro from fslc-*.

BTW Would kernel.org stable kernel work as well on i.MX6 if you need 
graphics and video? I used it successfully for headless IOT 
applications.

Bas.

> 
> 

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Andrey Zhizhikin]

Hello Bas,

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:18 PM Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl> wrote:
>
> On 2021-02-25 12:21, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Em qui., 25 de fev. de 2021 às 06:53, Terry Barnaby
> > <terry@beam.ltd.uk> escreveu:
> >>  From what I am seeing I will have to use a NXP fsl-* based
> >> distribution
> >> to support the imx hardware video processing features. I have built
> >> such
> >> a distro with both linux-fslc-imx and limux-imx kernels (I think!) for
> >> the Wandboard, which boots and runs but the HDMI display was not
> >> functional. I will persevere looking at that.
> >
> > No, you don't. You can use linux-fslc (mainline) and fslc-* distros as
> > i.MX6 has full mainline support. At O.S. Systems we have been using
> > Linux mainline with many customers with great success.
> >
>
> Wouldn't make sense to first evaluate the performance of the platform
> (as Terry plans to do) first on an NXP fsl-* distro? In that case one
> can get direct support from NXP if required. After that, derive your own
> distro from fslc-*.

This might not be quite indicative, as the NXP kernel might have some
"shortcuts" to boost performance in certain areas, sacrificing
conformance of the source code.

You might experience the situation that video performs quite well, but
then after opting for NXP kernel - you might find that some other
areas are not working as expected (some other domains). This would put
you in a situation that you've already committed to choose and deploy
the NXP-based BSP and would leave you to solve the issues in those
domains on your own efforts.

This is my pure speculation here, so take it with a grain of salt though. :)

IMHO, this should be considered and before the final product receives
commitment to use either of BSP flavors - all areas should be
validated, not only the performance aspects of Multimedia domain.

>
> BTW Would kernel.org stable kernel work as well on i.MX6 if you need
> graphics and video? I used it successfully for headless IOT
> applications.

As Fabio already indicated - this is possible.

>
> Bas.
>

--
Regards,
Andrey.

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Bas Mevissen]

On 2021-02-25 13:32, Andrey Zhizhikin wrote:
> Hello Bas,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:18 PM Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl> 
> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2021-02-25 12:21, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> > Em qui., 25 de fev. de 2021 às 06:53, Terry Barnaby
>> > <terry@beam.ltd.uk> escreveu:
>> >>  From what I am seeing I will have to use a NXP fsl-* based
>> >> distribution
>> >> to support the imx hardware video processing features. I have built
>> >> such
>> >> a distro with both linux-fslc-imx and limux-imx kernels (I think!) for
>> >> the Wandboard, which boots and runs but the HDMI display was not
>> >> functional. I will persevere looking at that.
>> >
>> > No, you don't. You can use linux-fslc (mainline) and fslc-* distros as
>> > i.MX6 has full mainline support. At O.S. Systems we have been using
>> > Linux mainline with many customers with great success.
>> >
>> 
>> Wouldn't make sense to first evaluate the performance of the platform
>> (as Terry plans to do) first on an NXP fsl-* distro? In that case one
>> can get direct support from NXP if required. After that, derive your 
>> own
>> distro from fslc-*.
> 
> This might not be quite indicative, as the NXP kernel might have some
> "shortcuts" to boost performance in certain areas, sacrificing
> conformance of the source code.
> 

At least you get an idea of what the HW platform can do.

> You might experience the situation that video performs quite well, but
> then after opting for NXP kernel - you might find that some other
> areas are not working as expected (some other domains). This would put
> you in a situation that you've already committed to choose and deploy
> the NXP-based BSP and would leave you to solve the issues in those
> domains on your own efforts.
> 
> This is my pure speculation here, so take it with a grain of salt 
> though. :)
> 
IMHO, you should never base your *product* on FSL. It is (at least, that 
is what was told me by (then) Freescale field engineers) only there to 
demonstrate the platform. Maybe that has changed over time.

When there is a huge performance difference between fsl and fslc, it 
needs to be resolved.

> IMHO, this should be considered and before the final product receives
> commitment to use either of BSP flavors - all areas should be
> validated, not only the performance aspects of Multimedia domain.
> 

Yes, when you have decided on the hardware to use. If you are evaluating 
the hardware to see whether it meets your requirements, you might want 
to take the option that gives you the best impression of the performance 
that can be achieved without too much of a hassle.
(it is an important step to do, at a stage of the development where time 
is usually very limited, so you want a quick but reliable result).

>> 
>> BTW Would kernel.org stable kernel work as well on i.MX6 if you need
>> graphics and video? I used it successfully for headless IOT
>> applications.
> 
> As Fabio already indicated - this is possible.
> 

Fabio said "mainline". I'm not sure whether meant linux-fslc (as Otavio 
used it) or kernel.org.
So I wanted to check that.

>> 
>> Bas.
>> 
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Andrey.
> 
> 
> 

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Fabio Estevam]

Hi Bas,

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 9:55 AM Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl> wrote:

> Fabio said "mainline". I'm not sure whether meant linux-fslc (as Otavio
> used it) or kernel.org.
> So I wanted to check that.

imx6 has decent graphics support in the mainline kernel via the
Etnaviv driver. Userspace is standard Mesa, with no binary blobs
involved.
VPU is supported by the coda driver and the standard Gstreamer packages.

By mainline, I do mean a "kernel.org" based kernel.

linux-fslc uses the stable tree from "kernel.org" as the base and add
additional patch on top.

Hope that clarifies things.

Cheers

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Bas Mevissen]

On 2021-02-25 14:01, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Hi Bas,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 9:55 AM Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Fabio said "mainline". I'm not sure whether meant linux-fslc (as 
>> Otavio
>> used it) or kernel.org.
>> So I wanted to check that.
> 
> imx6 has decent graphics support in the mainline kernel via the
> Etnaviv driver. Userspace is standard Mesa, with no binary blobs
> involved.
> VPU is supported by the coda driver and the standard Gstreamer 
> packages.
> 
> By mainline, I do mean a "kernel.org" based kernel.
> 
> linux-fslc uses the stable tree from "kernel.org" as the base and add
> additional patch on top.
> 

Ah yes, I see. Linux-fslc is now really up to date with kernel.org. I 
recall (from 2017 era) that that was different. Maybe I'm wrong about 
that.

> Hope that clarifies things.
> 
Yes, thanks for the explanation.

Bas.

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Andrey Zhizhikin]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:55 PM Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl> wrote:
>
> On 2021-02-25 13:32, Andrey Zhizhikin wrote:
> > Hello Bas,
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:18 PM Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2021-02-25 12:21, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> > Em qui., 25 de fev. de 2021 às 06:53, Terry Barnaby
> >> > <terry@beam.ltd.uk> escreveu:
> >> >>  From what I am seeing I will have to use a NXP fsl-* based
> >> >> distribution
> >> >> to support the imx hardware video processing features. I have built
> >> >> such
> >> >> a distro with both linux-fslc-imx and limux-imx kernels (I think!) for
> >> >> the Wandboard, which boots and runs but the HDMI display was not
> >> >> functional. I will persevere looking at that.
> >> >
> >> > No, you don't. You can use linux-fslc (mainline) and fslc-* distros as
> >> > i.MX6 has full mainline support. At O.S. Systems we have been using
> >> > Linux mainline with many customers with great success.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Wouldn't make sense to first evaluate the performance of the platform
> >> (as Terry plans to do) first on an NXP fsl-* distro? In that case one
> >> can get direct support from NXP if required. After that, derive your
> >> own
> >> distro from fslc-*.
> >
> > This might not be quite indicative, as the NXP kernel might have some
> > "shortcuts" to boost performance in certain areas, sacrificing
> > conformance of the source code.
> >
>
> At least you get an idea of what the HW platform can do.
>
> > You might experience the situation that video performs quite well, but
> > then after opting for NXP kernel - you might find that some other
> > areas are not working as expected (some other domains). This would put
> > you in a situation that you've already committed to choose and deploy
> > the NXP-based BSP and would leave you to solve the issues in those
> > domains on your own efforts.
> >
> > This is my pure speculation here, so take it with a grain of salt
> > though. :)
> >
> IMHO, you should never base your *product* on FSL. It is (at least, that
> is what was told me by (then) Freescale field engineers) only there to
> demonstrate the platform. Maybe that has changed over time.

That is exactly what I implied, below statement is about that.

>
> When there is a huge performance difference between fsl and fslc, it
> needs to be resolved.

By whom? This would lead to a situation that community does not take
responsibility for NXP and visa-versa. In this case - I have a bad
feeling that the engineering team in the company that decided to use
one flavor or another would be dealing with this fact. And this is
what I've also described as potential outcome.

>
> > IMHO, this should be considered and before the final product receives
> > commitment to use either of BSP flavors - all areas should be
> > validated, not only the performance aspects of Multimedia domain.
> >
>
> Yes, when you have decided on the hardware to use. If you are evaluating
> the hardware to see whether it meets your requirements, you might want
> to take the option that gives you the best impression of the performance
> that can be achieved without too much of a hassle.
> (it is an important step to do, at a stage of the development where time
> is usually very limited, so you want a quick but reliable result).

Correct, fully agree here.

>
> >>
> >> BTW Would kernel.org stable kernel work as well on i.MX6 if you need
> >> graphics and video? I used it successfully for headless IOT
> >> applications.
> >
> > As Fabio already indicated - this is possible.
> >
>
> Fabio said "mainline". I'm not sure whether meant linux-fslc (as Otavio
> used it) or kernel.org.

In this sense, linux-fslc *is* de-facto the kernel provided from
kernel.org. It has a handful of patched that are not in upstream:

$ git log --no-merges --oneline stable-git/linux-5.10.y..5.10.x+fslc
2b929f3dcf6c media: coda: Change firmware probing order
dacfb877023a ARM: imx: add smp support for imx7d
10c7ebc67e34 drivers, misc: add U-Boot bootcount driver
67ea92db430f fec: Add disable_giga parameter to force 10/100 operation
bc552ba32d60 MA-7633-2 [Android-Reboot]reboot to fastboot\recovery mode
695186a85a0d ARM: imx: add cpu_is_imx6() routine

> So I wanted to check that.
>
> >>
> >> Bas.
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Andrey.
> >
> >

--
Regards,
Andrey.

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Bas Mevissen]

On 2021-02-25 14:04, Andrey Zhizhikin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:55 PM Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl> 
> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2021-02-25 13:32, Andrey Zhizhikin wrote:
>> > Hello Bas,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:18 PM Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 2021-02-25 12:21, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> >> > Em qui., 25 de fev. de 2021 às 06:53, Terry Barnaby
>> >> > <terry@beam.ltd.uk> escreveu:
>> >> >>  From what I am seeing I will have to use a NXP fsl-* based
>> >> >> distribution
>> >> >> to support the imx hardware video processing features. I have built
>> >> >> such
>> >> >> a distro with both linux-fslc-imx and limux-imx kernels (I think!) for
>> >> >> the Wandboard, which boots and runs but the HDMI display was not
>> >> >> functional. I will persevere looking at that.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, you don't. You can use linux-fslc (mainline) and fslc-* distros as
>> >> > i.MX6 has full mainline support. At O.S. Systems we have been using
>> >> > Linux mainline with many customers with great success.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Wouldn't make sense to first evaluate the performance of the platform
>> >> (as Terry plans to do) first on an NXP fsl-* distro? In that case one
>> >> can get direct support from NXP if required. After that, derive your
>> >> own
>> >> distro from fslc-*.
>> >
>> > This might not be quite indicative, as the NXP kernel might have some
>> > "shortcuts" to boost performance in certain areas, sacrificing
>> > conformance of the source code.
>> >
>> 
>> At least you get an idea of what the HW platform can do.
>> 
>> > You might experience the situation that video performs quite well, but
>> > then after opting for NXP kernel - you might find that some other
>> > areas are not working as expected (some other domains). This would put
>> > you in a situation that you've already committed to choose and deploy
>> > the NXP-based BSP and would leave you to solve the issues in those
>> > domains on your own efforts.
>> >
>> > This is my pure speculation here, so take it with a grain of salt
>> > though. :)
>> >
>> IMHO, you should never base your *product* on FSL. It is (at least, 
>> that
>> is what was told me by (then) Freescale field engineers) only there to
>> demonstrate the platform. Maybe that has changed over time.
> 
> That is exactly what I implied, below statement is about that.
> 
Ok, I missed that obviously.

>> 
>> When there is a huge performance difference between fsl and fslc, it
>> needs to be resolved.
> 
> By whom? This would lead to a situation that community does not take
> responsibility for NXP and visa-versa. In this case - I have a bad
> feeling that the engineering team in the company that decided to use
> one flavor or another would be dealing with this fact. And this is
> what I've also described as potential outcome.
> 

It is actually that interaction between the community and NXP that has 
brought i.MX support at the level it has. So if a performance problem 
might pop up, it is that same combination that can and will work 
together to get it resolved. It is to the company/person who found the 
issue to bring it up (here) and not to resolve it as that requires 
capabilities that are not so widespread.

>> 
>> > IMHO, this should be considered and before the final product receives
>> > commitment to use either of BSP flavors - all areas should be
>> > validated, not only the performance aspects of Multimedia domain.
>> >
>> 
>> Yes, when you have decided on the hardware to use. If you are 
>> evaluating
>> the hardware to see whether it meets your requirements, you might want
>> to take the option that gives you the best impression of the 
>> performance
>> that can be achieved without too much of a hassle.
>> (it is an important step to do, at a stage of the development where 
>> time
>> is usually very limited, so you want a quick but reliable result).
> 
> Correct, fully agree here.
> 
>> 
>> >>
>> >> BTW Would kernel.org stable kernel work as well on i.MX6 if you need
>> >> graphics and video? I used it successfully for headless IOT
>> >> applications.
>> >
>> > As Fabio already indicated - this is possible.
>> >
>> 
>> Fabio said "mainline". I'm not sure whether meant linux-fslc (as 
>> Otavio
>> used it) or kernel.org.
> 
> In this sense, linux-fslc *is* de-facto the kernel provided from
> kernel.org. It has a handful of patched that are not in upstream:
> 
> $ git log --no-merges --oneline stable-git/linux-5.10.y..5.10.x+fslc
> 2b929f3dcf6c media: coda: Change firmware probing order
> dacfb877023a ARM: imx: add smp support for imx7d
> 10c7ebc67e34 drivers, misc: add U-Boot bootcount driver
> 67ea92db430f fec: Add disable_giga parameter to force 10/100 operation
> bc552ba32d60 MA-7633-2 [Android-Reboot]reboot to fastboot\recovery mode
> 695186a85a0d ARM: imx: add cpu_is_imx6() routine
> 
>> So I wanted to check that.
>> 
And that worked out brilliantly :-)
(thanks, see my response to Fabio on the same subject as well)

>> >>
>> >> Bas.
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Regards,
>> > Andrey.
>> >
>> >
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Andrey.

Regards,

Bas.

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Andrey Zhizhikin]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 2:22 PM Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl> wrote:
>
> On 2021-02-25 14:04, Andrey Zhizhikin wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:55 PM Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2021-02-25 13:32, Andrey Zhizhikin wrote:
> >> > Hello Bas,
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:18 PM Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 2021-02-25 12:21, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> >> > Em qui., 25 de fev. de 2021 às 06:53, Terry Barnaby
> >> >> > <terry@beam.ltd.uk> escreveu:
> >> >> >>  From what I am seeing I will have to use a NXP fsl-* based
> >> >> >> distribution
> >> >> >> to support the imx hardware video processing features. I have built
> >> >> >> such
> >> >> >> a distro with both linux-fslc-imx and limux-imx kernels (I think!) for
> >> >> >> the Wandboard, which boots and runs but the HDMI display was not
> >> >> >> functional. I will persevere looking at that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, you don't. You can use linux-fslc (mainline) and fslc-* distros as
> >> >> > i.MX6 has full mainline support. At O.S. Systems we have been using
> >> >> > Linux mainline with many customers with great success.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Wouldn't make sense to first evaluate the performance of the platform
> >> >> (as Terry plans to do) first on an NXP fsl-* distro? In that case one
> >> >> can get direct support from NXP if required. After that, derive your
> >> >> own
> >> >> distro from fslc-*.
> >> >
> >> > This might not be quite indicative, as the NXP kernel might have some
> >> > "shortcuts" to boost performance in certain areas, sacrificing
> >> > conformance of the source code.
> >> >
> >>
> >> At least you get an idea of what the HW platform can do.
> >>
> >> > You might experience the situation that video performs quite well, but
> >> > then after opting for NXP kernel - you might find that some other
> >> > areas are not working as expected (some other domains). This would put
> >> > you in a situation that you've already committed to choose and deploy
> >> > the NXP-based BSP and would leave you to solve the issues in those
> >> > domains on your own efforts.
> >> >
> >> > This is my pure speculation here, so take it with a grain of salt
> >> > though. :)
> >> >
> >> IMHO, you should never base your *product* on FSL. It is (at least,
> >> that
> >> is what was told me by (then) Freescale field engineers) only there to
> >> demonstrate the platform. Maybe that has changed over time.
> >
> > That is exactly what I implied, below statement is about that.
> >
> Ok, I missed that obviously.
>
> >>
> >> When there is a huge performance difference between fsl and fslc, it
> >> needs to be resolved.
> >
> > By whom? This would lead to a situation that community does not take
> > responsibility for NXP and visa-versa. In this case - I have a bad
> > feeling that the engineering team in the company that decided to use
> > one flavor or another would be dealing with this fact. And this is
> > what I've also described as potential outcome.
> >
>
> It is actually that interaction between the community and NXP that has
> brought i.MX support at the level it has. So if a performance problem
> might pop up, it is that same combination that can and will work
> together to get it resolved. It is to the company/person who found the
> issue to bring it up (here) and not to resolve it as that requires
> capabilities that are not so widespread.

In ideal situation - that would be a way to go. But in this case I
would expect that all patches that are present in NXP kernel tree are
posted upstream, so there would be no deviation and hence - no
performance differences between NXP and upstream kernels.

Of course, the problem when found - can be reported, but (a) I do not
believe that this list is a proper destination for such issues, as it
discuss the OE and not kernel-specific performance issues; and (b)
regressions can come from any side (NXP or upstream), which makes it
harder to bisect which side to be looked at.

I'm not saying that this is an impossible thing to solve, but in
reality the vast majority of efforts to solve those issues are landing
up at the side of those persons who've discovered them in the first
place.

This is all my point of view on the subject, and might deviate on a
case-by-case basis.

>
> >>
> >> > IMHO, this should be considered and before the final product receives
> >> > commitment to use either of BSP flavors - all areas should be
> >> > validated, not only the performance aspects of Multimedia domain.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, when you have decided on the hardware to use. If you are
> >> evaluating
> >> the hardware to see whether it meets your requirements, you might want
> >> to take the option that gives you the best impression of the
> >> performance
> >> that can be achieved without too much of a hassle.
> >> (it is an important step to do, at a stage of the development where
> >> time
> >> is usually very limited, so you want a quick but reliable result).
> >
> > Correct, fully agree here.
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> BTW Would kernel.org stable kernel work as well on i.MX6 if you need
> >> >> graphics and video? I used it successfully for headless IOT
> >> >> applications.
> >> >
> >> > As Fabio already indicated - this is possible.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Fabio said "mainline". I'm not sure whether meant linux-fslc (as
> >> Otavio
> >> used it) or kernel.org.
> >
> > In this sense, linux-fslc *is* de-facto the kernel provided from
> > kernel.org. It has a handful of patched that are not in upstream:
> >
> > $ git log --no-merges --oneline stable-git/linux-5.10.y..5.10.x+fslc
> > 2b929f3dcf6c media: coda: Change firmware probing order
> > dacfb877023a ARM: imx: add smp support for imx7d
> > 10c7ebc67e34 drivers, misc: add U-Boot bootcount driver
> > 67ea92db430f fec: Add disable_giga parameter to force 10/100 operation
> > bc552ba32d60 MA-7633-2 [Android-Reboot]reboot to fastboot\recovery mode
> > 695186a85a0d ARM: imx: add cpu_is_imx6() routine
> >
> >> So I wanted to check that.
> >>
> And that worked out brilliantly :-)
> (thanks, see my response to Fabio on the same subject as well)
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Bas.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Andrey.
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Andrey.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bas.



-- 
Regards,
Andrey.

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[eremenok.k.by]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7218 bytes --]

Hi, there.
I see here a lot of specialists. Some qestions.
1. What kernel (community or non-community) would you take for your own
board (not NXP, not O.S.)?
2. I took the branch origin/imx_4.14.98_2.0.0_ga. Is it a
community supported branch?

чт, 25 февр. 2021 г. в 17:00, Andrey Zhizhikin <andrey.z@gmail.com>:

> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 2:22 PM Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl> wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-02-25 14:04, Andrey Zhizhikin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:55 PM Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 2021-02-25 13:32, Andrey Zhizhikin wrote:
> > >> > Hello Bas,
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:18 PM Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On 2021-02-25 12:21, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > >> >> > Em qui., 25 de fev. de 2021 às 06:53, Terry Barnaby
> > >> >> > <terry@beam.ltd.uk> escreveu:
> > >> >> >>  From what I am seeing I will have to use a NXP fsl-* based
> > >> >> >> distribution
> > >> >> >> to support the imx hardware video processing features. I have
> built
> > >> >> >> such
> > >> >> >> a distro with both linux-fslc-imx and limux-imx kernels (I
> think!) for
> > >> >> >> the Wandboard, which boots and runs but the HDMI display was not
> > >> >> >> functional. I will persevere looking at that.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > No, you don't. You can use linux-fslc (mainline) and fslc-*
> distros as
> > >> >> > i.MX6 has full mainline support. At O.S. Systems we have been
> using
> > >> >> > Linux mainline with many customers with great success.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Wouldn't make sense to first evaluate the performance of the
> platform
> > >> >> (as Terry plans to do) first on an NXP fsl-* distro? In that case
> one
> > >> >> can get direct support from NXP if required. After that, derive
> your
> > >> >> own
> > >> >> distro from fslc-*.
> > >> >
> > >> > This might not be quite indicative, as the NXP kernel might have
> some
> > >> > "shortcuts" to boost performance in certain areas, sacrificing
> > >> > conformance of the source code.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> At least you get an idea of what the HW platform can do.
> > >>
> > >> > You might experience the situation that video performs quite well,
> but
> > >> > then after opting for NXP kernel - you might find that some other
> > >> > areas are not working as expected (some other domains). This would
> put
> > >> > you in a situation that you've already committed to choose and
> deploy
> > >> > the NXP-based BSP and would leave you to solve the issues in those
> > >> > domains on your own efforts.
> > >> >
> > >> > This is my pure speculation here, so take it with a grain of salt
> > >> > though. :)
> > >> >
> > >> IMHO, you should never base your *product* on FSL. It is (at least,
> > >> that
> > >> is what was told me by (then) Freescale field engineers) only there to
> > >> demonstrate the platform. Maybe that has changed over time.
> > >
> > > That is exactly what I implied, below statement is about that.
> > >
> > Ok, I missed that obviously.
> >
> > >>
> > >> When there is a huge performance difference between fsl and fslc, it
> > >> needs to be resolved.
> > >
> > > By whom? This would lead to a situation that community does not take
> > > responsibility for NXP and visa-versa. In this case - I have a bad
> > > feeling that the engineering team in the company that decided to use
> > > one flavor or another would be dealing with this fact. And this is
> > > what I've also described as potential outcome.
> > >
> >
> > It is actually that interaction between the community and NXP that has
> > brought i.MX support at the level it has. So if a performance problem
> > might pop up, it is that same combination that can and will work
> > together to get it resolved. It is to the company/person who found the
> > issue to bring it up (here) and not to resolve it as that requires
> > capabilities that are not so widespread.
>
> In ideal situation - that would be a way to go. But in this case I
> would expect that all patches that are present in NXP kernel tree are
> posted upstream, so there would be no deviation and hence - no
> performance differences between NXP and upstream kernels.
>
> Of course, the problem when found - can be reported, but (a) I do not
> believe that this list is a proper destination for such issues, as it
> discuss the OE and not kernel-specific performance issues; and (b)
> regressions can come from any side (NXP or upstream), which makes it
> harder to bisect which side to be looked at.
>
> I'm not saying that this is an impossible thing to solve, but in
> reality the vast majority of efforts to solve those issues are landing
> up at the side of those persons who've discovered them in the first
> place.
>
> This is all my point of view on the subject, and might deviate on a
> case-by-case basis.
>
> >
> > >>
> > >> > IMHO, this should be considered and before the final product
> receives
> > >> > commitment to use either of BSP flavors - all areas should be
> > >> > validated, not only the performance aspects of Multimedia domain.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Yes, when you have decided on the hardware to use. If you are
> > >> evaluating
> > >> the hardware to see whether it meets your requirements, you might want
> > >> to take the option that gives you the best impression of the
> > >> performance
> > >> that can be achieved without too much of a hassle.
> > >> (it is an important step to do, at a stage of the development where
> > >> time
> > >> is usually very limited, so you want a quick but reliable result).
> > >
> > > Correct, fully agree here.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> BTW Would kernel.org stable kernel work as well on i.MX6 if you
> need
> > >> >> graphics and video? I used it successfully for headless IOT
> > >> >> applications.
> > >> >
> > >> > As Fabio already indicated - this is possible.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Fabio said "mainline". I'm not sure whether meant linux-fslc (as
> > >> Otavio
> > >> used it) or kernel.org.
> > >
> > > In this sense, linux-fslc *is* de-facto the kernel provided from
> > > kernel.org. It has a handful of patched that are not in upstream:
> > >
> > > $ git log --no-merges --oneline stable-git/linux-5.10.y..5.10.x+fslc
> > > 2b929f3dcf6c media: coda: Change firmware probing order
> > > dacfb877023a ARM: imx: add smp support for imx7d
> > > 10c7ebc67e34 drivers, misc: add U-Boot bootcount driver
> > > 67ea92db430f fec: Add disable_giga parameter to force 10/100 operation
> > > bc552ba32d60 MA-7633-2 [Android-Reboot]reboot to fastboot\recovery mode
> > > 695186a85a0d ARM: imx: add cpu_is_imx6() routine
> > >
> > >> So I wanted to check that.
> > >>
> > And that worked out brilliantly :-)
> > (thanks, see my response to Fabio on the same subject as well)
> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Bas.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Regards,
> > >> > Andrey.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Andrey.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bas.
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Andrey.
>
> 
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9923 bytes --]

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Bas Mevissen]

On 2021-02-26 10:36, Константин Еременок wrote:

> Hi, there.
> I see here a lot of specialists. Some qestions.

You are welcome, however:
1) Start a new topic for a new question
2) Do not top post to keep discussion threads readable

I'm not a specialist, but I think I can answer your questions.

> 1. What kernel (community or non-community) would you take for your own 
> board (not NXP, not O.S.)?

IMHO, community unless quickly testing out something or when the 
community kernel is not sufficient (performance, specific hw 
support,...).

> 2. I took the branch origin/imx_4.14.98_2.0.0_ga. Is it a community 
> supported branch?
> 
 From 
https://source.codeaurora.org/external/imx/linux-imx/log/?h=imx_4.14.98_2.0.0_ga? 
That is not community, but NXP.

Regards,

Bas.


> чт, 25 февр. 2021 г. в 17:00, Andrey Zhizhikin <andrey.z@gmail.com>:
> 
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 2:22 PM Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl> 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 2021-02-25 14:04, Andrey Zhizhikin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:55 PM Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2021-02-25 13:32, Andrey Zhizhikin wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Bas,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:18 PM Bas Mevissen 
>>>>>> <abuse@basmevissen.nl>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 2021-02-25 12:21, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>>>> > Em qui., 25 de fev. de 2021 às 06:53, Terry Barnaby
>>>>>>> > <terry@beam.ltd.uk> escreveu:
>>>>>>> >>  From what I am seeing I will have to use a NXP fsl-* based
>>>>>>> >> distribution
>>>>>>> >> to support the imx hardware video processing features. I have built
>>>>>>> >> such
>>>>>>> >> a distro with both linux-fslc-imx and limux-imx kernels (I think!) for
>>>>>>> >> the Wandboard, which boots and runs but the HDMI display was not
>>>>>>> >> functional. I will persevere looking at that.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > No, you don't. You can use linux-fslc (mainline) and fslc-* distros as
>>>>>>> > i.MX6 has full mainline support. At O.S. Systems we have been using
>>>>>>> > Linux mainline with many customers with great success.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Wouldn't make sense to first evaluate the performance of the 
>>>>>>> platform
>>>>>>> (as Terry plans to do) first on an NXP fsl-* distro? In that case 
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> can get direct support from NXP if required. After that, derive 
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>> distro from fslc-*.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This might not be quite indicative, as the NXP kernel might have 
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> "shortcuts" to boost performance in certain areas, sacrificing
>>>>>> conformance of the source code.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> At least you get an idea of what the HW platform can do.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> You might experience the situation that video performs quite well, 
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> then after opting for NXP kernel - you might find that some other
>>>>>> areas are not working as expected (some other domains). This would 
>>>>>> put
>>>>>> you in a situation that you've already committed to choose and 
>>>>>> deploy
>>>>>> the NXP-based BSP and would leave you to solve the issues in those
>>>>>> domains on your own efforts.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is my pure speculation here, so take it with a grain of salt
>>>>>> though. :)
>>>>>> 
>>>>> IMHO, you should never base your *product* on FSL. It is (at least,
>>>>> that
>>>>> is what was told me by (then) Freescale field engineers) only there 
>>>>> to
>>>>> demonstrate the platform. Maybe that has changed over time.
>>>> 
>>>> That is exactly what I implied, below statement is about that.
>>>> 
>>> Ok, I missed that obviously.
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> When there is a huge performance difference between fsl and fslc, 
>>>>> it
>>>>> needs to be resolved.
>>>> 
>>>> By whom? This would lead to a situation that community does not take
>>>> responsibility for NXP and visa-versa. In this case - I have a bad
>>>> feeling that the engineering team in the company that decided to use
>>>> one flavor or another would be dealing with this fact. And this is
>>>> what I've also described as potential outcome.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> It is actually that interaction between the community and NXP that 
>>> has
>>> brought i.MX support at the level it has. So if a performance problem
>>> might pop up, it is that same combination that can and will work
>>> together to get it resolved. It is to the company/person who found 
>>> the
>>> issue to bring it up (here) and not to resolve it as that requires
>>> capabilities that are not so widespread.
>> 
>> In ideal situation - that would be a way to go. But in this case I
>> would expect that all patches that are present in NXP kernel tree are
>> posted upstream, so there would be no deviation and hence - no
>> performance differences between NXP and upstream kernels.
>> 
>> Of course, the problem when found - can be reported, but (a) I do not
>> believe that this list is a proper destination for such issues, as it
>> discuss the OE and not kernel-specific performance issues; and (b)
>> regressions can come from any side (NXP or upstream), which makes it
>> harder to bisect which side to be looked at.
>> 
>> I'm not saying that this is an impossible thing to solve, but in
>> reality the vast majority of efforts to solve those issues are landing
>> up at the side of those persons who've discovered them in the first
>> place.
>> 
>> This is all my point of view on the subject, and might deviate on a
>> case-by-case basis.
>> 
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> IMHO, this should be considered and before the final product 
>>>>>> receives
>>>>>> commitment to use either of BSP flavors - all areas should be
>>>>>> validated, not only the performance aspects of Multimedia domain.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, when you have decided on the hardware to use. If you are
>>>>> evaluating
>>>>> the hardware to see whether it meets your requirements, you might 
>>>>> want
>>>>> to take the option that gives you the best impression of the
>>>>> performance
>>>>> that can be achieved without too much of a hassle.
>>>>> (it is an important step to do, at a stage of the development where
>>>>> time
>>>>> is usually very limited, so you want a quick but reliable result).
>>>> 
>>>> Correct, fully agree here.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> BTW Would kernel.org stable kernel work as well on i.MX6 if you 
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> graphics and video? I used it successfully for headless IOT
>>>>>>> applications.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As Fabio already indicated - this is possible.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Fabio said "mainline". I'm not sure whether meant linux-fslc (as
>>>>> Otavio
>>>>> used it) or kernel.org.
>>>> 
>>>> In this sense, linux-fslc *is* de-facto the kernel provided from
>>>> kernel.org. It has a handful of patched that are not in upstream:
>>>> 
>>>> $ git log --no-merges --oneline stable-git/linux-5.10.y..5.10.x+fslc
>>>> 2b929f3dcf6c media: coda: Change firmware probing order
>>>> dacfb877023a ARM: imx: add smp support for imx7d
>>>> 10c7ebc67e34 drivers, misc: add U-Boot bootcount driver
>>>> 67ea92db430f fec: Add disable_giga parameter to force 10/100 
>>>> operation
>>>> bc552ba32d60 MA-7633-2 [Android-Reboot]reboot to fastboot\recovery 
>>>> mode
>>>> 695186a85a0d ARM: imx: add cpu_is_imx6() routine
>>>> 
>>>>> So I wanted to check that.
>>>>> 
>>> And that worked out brilliantly :-)
>>> (thanks, see my response to Fabio on the same subject as well)
>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Bas.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Andrey.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Andrey.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Bas.
>> 
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Andrey.
>> 
>> 

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Константин Еременок]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 27 bytes --]

Thanks. Sorry for a spam.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 120 bytes --]

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Fabio Estevam]

Hi Terry,

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 6:29 AM Andrey Zhizhikin <andrey.z@gmail.com> wrote:

> > For a novice to NXP Freescale builds, what setup would you recommend as a basic test Yocto build for a Wandboard IMX6 dual lite system in order to test the performance of the hardware video processing system using gstreamer*imx (VPU etc) ?
>
> Since I do not have any of the i.MX6 HW and unaware of the state of
> VPU support - I can only speak from distro perspective. Anyone who
> posses the HW can clarify points from machine perspective here.

Yes, imx6 is well supported in mainline kernels including VPU support.

Please note that with the mainline kernel, you should use the standard
gstreamer packages, not the gstreamer-imx ones.

The gstreamer-imx packages are meant to be used only with NXP kernels.

Regards,

Fabio Estevam

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Terry Barnaby]

On 25/02/2021 11:47, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Hi Terry,
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 6:29 AM Andrey Zhizhikin <andrey.z@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> For a novice to NXP Freescale builds, what setup would you recommend as a basic test Yocto build for a Wandboard IMX6 dual lite system in order to test the performance of the hardware video processing system using gstreamer*imx (VPU etc) ?
>> Since I do not have any of the i.MX6 HW and unaware of the state of
>> VPU support - I can only speak from distro perspective. Anyone who
>> posses the HW can clarify points from machine perspective here.
> Yes, imx6 is well supported in mainline kernels including VPU support.
>
> Please note that with the mainline kernel, you should use the standard
> gstreamer packages, not the gstreamer-imx ones.
>
> The gstreamer-imx packages are meant to be used only with NXP kernels.
>
> Regards,
>
> Fabio Estevam

Many thanks for that info, from Internet info it looked like the 
gstreamer-imx package and associated lower libraries/drivers were 
needed, I will try another build, the gstreamer video hardware support 
wasn't there (as reported by gst-inspect-1.0) when I tried, maybe I got 
lost in a tangle of distro, kernel and bitbake targets.

Terry

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Fabio Estevam]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 8:58 AM Terry Barnaby <terry@beam.ltd.uk> wrote:

> Many thanks for that info, from Internet info it looked like the
> gstreamer-imx package and associated lower libraries/drivers were
> needed, I will try another build, the gstreamer video hardware support
> wasn't there (as reported by gst-inspect-1.0) when I tried, maybe I got
> lost in a tangle of distro, kernel and bitbake targets.

The v4l2dec/enc plugins only show up if the VPU driver were successfully loaded.

Make sure that the VPU (coda) driver is being loaded correctly with
the associated firmware.

After that, these v4l2dec/enc plugins should be reported by gst-inspect.

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Terry Barnaby]

On 25/02/2021 12:02, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 8:58 AM Terry Barnaby <terry@beam.ltd.uk> wrote:
>
>> Many thanks for that info, from Internet info it looked like the
>> gstreamer-imx package and associated lower libraries/drivers were
>> needed, I will try another build, the gstreamer video hardware support
>> wasn't there (as reported by gst-inspect-1.0) when I tried, maybe I got
>> lost in a tangle of distro, kernel and bitbake targets.
> The v4l2dec/enc plugins only show up if the VPU driver were successfully loaded.
>
> Make sure that the VPU (coda) driver is being loaded correctly with
> the associated firmware.
>
> After that, these v4l2dec/enc plugins should be reported by gst-inspect.

I discovered where I was going wrong. My Yocto/Freecale build for the 
Wandboard with standard fslc-x11 distro and linux-fslc kernel did have 
iMX8 video hardware supported and working!

I was originally using a Wandboard supplied binary distro for testing 
that was quite old that used gstreamer modules such as imxv4l2sink, 
vpuenc_h264, overlaysync etc and most of the Internet documentation for 
iMX6's was the same. However the latest dunfell level gstreamer uses the 
more generally standard v4l2h264enc gstreamer module that ends up by 
using the iMX6 VPU's H264 encoder.

Now I just need to work out if the current iMX6 video hardware API's 
allows me to do the video processing pipeline I want/need with suitably 
low enough CPU and memory bandwidth usage. Also how to get an efficient 
gstreamer video source for performance testing while I await a working 
physical camera as videotestsrc uses a lot of CPU for some reason 
masking the performance testing.

Note I am using Fedora33 as a build platform now, and that seems fine 
with dunfell although not yet marked as a known working platform for 
building.

Many thanks for everyone's help.

Terry

Re: [meta-freescale] imx6dl dunfell and kernel: linux-fslc or linux-fslc-imx?

[Bas Mevissen]

On 2021-02-26 11:26, Terry Barnaby wrote:
> On 25/02/2021 12:02, Fabio Estevam wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 8:58 AM Terry Barnaby <terry@beam.ltd.uk> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Many thanks for that info, from Internet info it looked like the
>>> gstreamer-imx package and associated lower libraries/drivers were
>>> needed, I will try another build, the gstreamer video hardware 
>>> support
>>> wasn't there (as reported by gst-inspect-1.0) when I tried, maybe I 
>>> got
>>> lost in a tangle of distro, kernel and bitbake targets.
>> The v4l2dec/enc plugins only show up if the VPU driver were 
>> successfully loaded.
>> 
>> Make sure that the VPU (coda) driver is being loaded correctly with
>> the associated firmware.
>> 
>> After that, these v4l2dec/enc plugins should be reported by 
>> gst-inspect.
> 
> I discovered where I was going wrong. My Yocto/Freecale build for the
> Wandboard with standard fslc-x11 distro and linux-fslc kernel did have
> iMX8 video hardware supported and working!
> 
> I was originally using a Wandboard supplied binary distro for testing
> that was quite old that used gstreamer modules such as imxv4l2sink,
> vpuenc_h264, overlaysync etc and most of the Internet documentation
> for iMX6's was the same. However the latest dunfell level gstreamer
> uses the more generally standard v4l2h264enc gstreamer module that
> ends up by using the iMX6 VPU's H264 encoder.
> 
> Now I just need to work out if the current iMX6 video hardware API's
> allows me to do the video processing pipeline I want/need with
> suitably low enough CPU and memory bandwidth usage. Also how to get an
> efficient gstreamer video source for performance testing while I await
> a working physical camera as videotestsrc uses a lot of CPU for some
> reason masking the performance testing.
> 

Good to hear you make progress!

> Note I am using Fedora33 as a build platform now, and that seems fine
> with dunfell although not yet marked as a known working platform for
> building.
> 

I also always use the latest Fedora as my development platform. It 
usually works without a problem (except for the warning). Only the 
uninative cannot always keep up with the latet glibc used in Fedora. But 
that is usually picked up very quickly.

For older Yocto versions, I use systemd containers with a matching OS, 
like CentOS 7 or Debian. Toradex has a nice write-up on how to set that 
up.

> Many thanks for everyone's help.
> 
> Terry
> 
> 
> 
>