On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 09:46 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 23:03 +0100, Arnaud Patard wrote: [...] > > > > > >> It sounds like there has been talk of a unified i.mx5 and i.mx6 armhf > > >> debian kernel flavor (something like '-mx'), > > > > > > I wonder if we have now reached the point with all the upstream single > > > image work where we could have a single flavour for armhf? i.e. a single > > > generic flavour not -mx (or maybe two, regular and lpae). > > > > There's still some work needed. Some devices (imx5/omap) have not yet been > > converted into DT. > > So it sounds like we should have a new generic DT flavour, containing > imx6 support (and any other platforms which are ready), and leave the > existing imx5/omap flavours alone, as opposed to adding imx6 to the imx5 > flavour and renaming it to -imx. I'm not entirely clear on what's happening with MX5, but it looks like all the machines the wheezy mx5 flavour supports are now DT-only upstream (as of 3.7). Can anyone confirm whether the linux-image-3.7-trunk-mx5 package in experimental actually works on one of these machines? (Also, I noticed that some i.MX6q DTB files have been included in it - I wonder how that happens?) > Over time most new stuff should be added to the generic flavour and > things can migrate from the others as they become ready. > > > > Even if we can't do that right now I'd have thought it ought to be > > > doable by the time we freeze for jessie. > > > > > > > I think that having a omap/mvebu/imx/... multiplatform kernel for jessie > > is possible but clearly not for wheezy. > > Agreed, I assume the Wheezy flavours are pretty much fixed by this stage > in the freeze? I think that in principle we could *add* a flavour, but we can't reasonably merge or rename the existing flavours at this stage. > I'm not sure if Bryan is interested in Wheezy anyhow, since it is 3.2 > kernel I would imagine a fair bit of backporting would be needed, it's a > bit of a different conversation to this one I think, we'd need to start > by someone identifying the list of changes which would need backporting. [...] I assume Brian is hoping to use wheezy userland plus a wheezy-backports kernel. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings I'm always amazed by the number of people who take up solipsism because they heard someone else explain it. - E*Borg on alt.fan.pratchett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part