Code review comment for lp://qastaging/~linaro-landing-team-freescale/linaro-image-tools/mx53-loco

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Loïc Minier <email address hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2011, Eric Miao wrote:
>> >> +    kernel_suffix = 'linaro-imx5'
>> >
>> >  The kernel suffix we use for i.MX51 boards is currently linaro-mx51;
>> >  for which kernel is the above suffix?  Is it a BSP kernel, and if so
>> >  why does it have linaro in the name?  If not, could we switch all the
>> >  i.MX51 boards to use it instead of linaro-mx51?  It would be nice to
>> >  have a single kernel for all i.MX51 and i.MX53 boards.
>>
>> That's my intention too. The problem with upstream kernel is that
>> the RUNTIME PHYS_OFFSET is not yet there, thus preventing a
>> single kernel image built for i.MX51 and i.MX53, although work is in
>> smooth progress, and very hopefully we'll see it in 2.6.39.
>>
>> And for 11.05 release, we are using a kernel based on Freescale's
>> 2.6.35 BSP, which supports a single kernel for both i.MX51/53
>> (with those relevant patches backported)
>
>  Ok; it seems we wont linux-linaro imx51 + imx53 support by 11.05?  Or
>  is there any chance that it happens?

Unless we use Freescale's BSP

>
>  Does your BSP-based kernel add value to imx51 boards too, so that we
>  should support installation of your BSP-based kernel on imx51 boards
>  like mx51evk, or efikamx?

I think not, though we are still trying on that. Me still waiting for my
babbage to clear the Customs.

>
>> >  Any reason this is called "imx5" instead of "mx5"?  Is this to use the
>> >  same name as SOC_IMX50, SOC_IMX51, SOC_IMX53?  SOC_ is used a lot in
>> >  i.MX mach-* subtrees, but not so much in other trees; maybe we should
>> >  use the name from the mach-* subdirectories to name our suffixes?
>> >  (linaro-mx5)
>> No specific reason for that. mx5 is perfectly fine.
>
>  Ok; my vote would go for linaro-mx5 for linux-linaro based kernels when
>  it starts supporting both imx51 and imx53; the BSP-based kernel should
>  probably be named lp-mx5 or bsp-mx5, or at least not carry the "linaro"
>  name since they are not really built straight from linux-linaro.
>
>  Looking at the existing "lt-foo" hwpacks, I see:
>  http://snapshots.linaro.org/11.05-daily/linaro-hwpacks/lt-u8500/latest/0/config/hwpacks/linaro-u8500
>  uses linux-u8500 as package name, /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.35-1000-u8500 as
>  filename, while:
>  http://snapshots.linaro.org/11.05-daily/linaro-hwpacks/lt-s5pv310/latest/0/config/hwpacks/linaro-lt-s5pv310
>  uses linux-image-2.6.37-1000-s5pv310 as package name (probably didn't
>  upload a meta), /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.38-1000-s5pv310 as filename.
>
>  Since these are PPA only, the name doesn't matter too much, but it
>  would be nice if it was unambiguous/non-misleading and consistent; I'm
>  sure John Rigby and Jamie Bennett can help ensure the package names are
>  consistent, I will start discusson on this.  I would find using
>  "lt-$CommonSocName" the clearest.  It's easy to update
>  linaro-image-tools before 11.05 to whatever you pick, but it's a pain
>  to change it once linaro-image-tools has been part of
>  the 11.05 release with this name supported.
>
>  So we can merge this "linaro-imx5" name right now, but I wouldn't mind
>  if we had a bug tracking that this name needs to be fixed.
>
>> >  Is there a reason why uboot_imx_file would ever be missing from the
>> >  hwpack?
>>
>> We're currently using the u-boot from Freescale's BSP since the
>> support in upstream is not there yet. Until the mx53 loco patches
>> are upstreamed, we can definitely remove this.
> [...]
>> No, the u-boot.bin built from Freescale's BSP is the one padded with
>> the MBR. It's just painful to explain this. The u-boot.imx is generated
>> with a script in upstream, while there is no such thing in Freescale's
>> BSP (cuz it's basing on a earlier u-boot version). So instead, they're
>> generating a different u-boot.bin.
>
>  Ok; I worked with Freescale u-boot tree a while ago, and I indeed
>  remember they generate a padded u-boot.bin; I was confused because the
>  config was also adding support for an optional "u-boot.imx", and this
>  meant a mainline u-boot for me.
>
>  It seems to me that support for mx53loco has been completed on top of
>  the upstream u-boot tree; I've sent a message to John Rigby to request
>  inclusion of the patches if that's possible.  If not, I guess you could
>  just create your own tree based on u-boot-linaro + these patches.
>
>  This way, we wouldn't have to worry about the specificities of the
>  Freescale u-boot tree anymore, and it's padded u-boot.bin.
>
>  Is this ok?  Or do we really need to support FSL's padded u-boot.bin?
>  I would hope we can entirely avoid supporting this intermediate
>  situation in the tool.
>
>
>  If you're ok with all the above, could you merge my branch into yours
>  and push yours again?
>
> --
> Loïc Minier
>