[meta-freescale] Request to integrate freescale i.mx 3.10.9-1.0.0 alpha release into dora branch of meta-fsl-arm

[Eric Nelson]

On 10/02/2013 09:28 AM, Eric Nelson wrote:
> Thanks Otavio,
> On 10/02/2013 08:11 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
 >
>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Eric Nelson
>>> What's more, I think it's very important for different boards to be
>>> able to specify which kernel version is recommended for each, since
>>> the efforts behind them progress along different time-lines.
>>
>> Yes; this can be done. We does it already and Bondary's boards also
>> use a different kernel.
>>
>
> Kernel, yes.
>
> But at the moment, there's no way for a board/kernel to select
> the revision of binaries, right?
>      https://github.com/Freescale/meta-fsl-arm/blob/dora/recipes-multimedia/libfslvpuwrap/libfslvpuwrap_1.0.38.bb
>
> Or can we, for instance, have two recipes for the components,
> e.g.
>      gpu-viv-bin-mx6q_3.5.7-1.0.0-alpha.2-hfp.bb
>      gpu-viv-bin-mx6q_3.10.9-1.0.0-alpha-hfp.bb
>
> and express PREFERRED_VERSION_gpu-viv-bin-mx6q=3.5.7-1.0.0-alpha.2
> in the linux-boundary_3.0.35.bb recipe and then set
> PREFERRED_VERSION_gpu-viv-bin-mx6q=3.10.9-1.0.0-alpha.2 in a
> linux-boundary_3.10.9.bb recipe?

Based on Lauren's comments that the 3.10.9 binaries are ABI-compatible
with the 3.0.35_4.1.0 release, and to allow testing of things,
perhaps this is more appropriate:

	PREFERRED_VERSION_blah ?= 3.10.9-1.0.0-alpha

Regards,


Eric