From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id A010DE006B5; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 10:21:46 -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=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [209.85.160.174 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 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-yk0-f174.google.com (mail-yk0-f174.google.com [209.85.160.174]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB73FE0034C for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 10:21:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yk0-f174.google.com with SMTP id q9so5632596ykb.19 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 10:21:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Zp+M6+gl+gvCVhIYEnCJ/H26Xfz5OZlgUlmZLBIG2rA=; b=MZnDuvzhj+8QeR74oB3DdQ72sBV4Wf2+GNO8uj7H6dmQS3q9g1ioCbS+6kNPrMqBQC fVEeYCUa1+WngiHLynZa0Yo8ltv7Xno3ZHnwLfiGcBNQlGdbY+Y68x5FyOYzFqAcfqnE 9PPe7/Bxw7mBXmHzOOMLBxa0ocC9DCGmf9lel3li0FzF/udbWVCp+w2qfKTw2gB9cFvZ tyNWDlDATrHi+GnZylDD+elnJNAzv3vop6k+TUmGt61uSAzNOVGJt6E96oOM8Ri6qaiH jliupNf+4I/c0kuwM4+TEdJkdskaniXvoAY4R4zGkBY4U8te1H1/oMG/z2r9+yuXH4Ab UTEQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.29.171 with SMTP id i31mr69096723yha.37.1408468891886; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 10:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Sender: otavio.salvador@gmail.com Received: by 10.170.56.201 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 10:21:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53F379CC.9050003@boundarydevices.com> References: <8f1e8166115a4a4381ded78a5536c001@BY2PR03MB379.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <23db6296a5b24ce3accdde41476d7d6d@DM2PR0301MB0701.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <53F3738E.4040902@boundarydevices.com> <53F374C8.6090201@pseudoterminal.org> <53F379CC.9050003@boundarydevices.com> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:21:31 -0300 X-Google-Sender-Auth: -QhbE_nJ65uYfpUc4LNGr-Sjsq8 Message-ID: From: Otavio Salvador To: Eric Nelson Cc: "meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: i.MX 3.10.31-1.1.0_beta release - community feedback requested 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: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:21:46 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Eric Nelson wrote: > On 08/19/2014 09:01 AM, Carlos Rafael Giani wrote: >> Well, of course Freescale is interested in option 2, since it helps with >> their kernel development :) >> > > Which is a good thing! > >> But think about it this way: >> >> you are a customer, and are using the beta kernel, because that's what >> is in Yocto Project 1.7. Something goes wrong. You contact your >> Freescale FAE. Response: "we can't help you, because you are using an >> unsupported kernel". This is the main problem. Not necessarily the >> stability of the beta kernel, but the lack of Freescale support. >> > > My experience is that getting support on the latest is easier, since > that's where developers tend to live. > > When Freescale is asked to investigate a bug, they will likely ask > that it be reproduced on Freescale hardware and using a Freescale > supplied kernel and userspace (i.e. not from the Community BSP). > > For users of other hardware and kernels (i.e. most of the world), these > tend to be the biggest hurdles. > > By placing the latest (-beta) kernel in master-next now and > master in October, we're placing a big hurdle on adoption of > 3.10.31. Breakage is common in master and this generally has > nothing to do with the kernel or Freescale bits. > > This is clearly all gray area, and these are just my 2c. Just to clarify. What should we do with boards which: a) including in master now means getting 3.10.31 in next stable, in October. b) does not update or fix their kernel to work with newer GPU stack? b is very critical in my point of view as this impacts user experience and if we don't remove broken boards their images will segfault in the boards. What is your view on this? -- 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