l-mc and l-a-m-c option is inconsistent wrt i.MX53

[Fathi Boudra]

the --dev option is inconsistent across l-m-c and l-a-m-c:
* linaro-media-create is using "mx53loco".
* linaro-android-media-create is using "iMX53"

[Zach Pfeffer (pfefferz)]

lets make both imx53. Sound good?

[Mattias Backman (mabac)]

That works too, although the value for the --dev option in l-m-c has been around longer so it might break more scripts or automation for people than changing the l-a-m-c option. Anything that would break is easily fixed though so perhaps that's not a big problem.

[Fathi Boudra (fboudra)]

could we have a compatibility mode? mx53loco or iMX53 or imx53, call i.MX53 code path. mx53loco or iMX53 will trigger a "deprecated" message.

[James Westby (james-w)]

Hi Eric, does fsl have a strong opinion on the naming of this?

Thanks,

James

[James Westby (james-w)]

Hi Eric,

Do you have any opinion on this issue? It would be good to get this finalised soon.

Thanks,

James

[Eric Miao (eric.y.miao)]

My understanding of "--dev" option is to specify a board name instead of specifying the SoC name. Whether the actual support for that board is available or not will be encoded (hopefully in v2) in the hardware pack. And l-m-c (or l-a-m-c) shall be intelligent enough to figure that out and do the right thing. So my strong preference would be the original name 'mx53loco', and hopefully l-a-m-c could adapt to it.

[Eric Miao (eric.y.miao)]

E.g. so far we officially support the below Freescale boards:

  - i.MX51 babbage (mx51evk)
  - i.MX53 LoCo (mx53loco)

We may eventually increase this list one by one as more boards are supported (by supported - it's for monthly release and a certain level of QA is done).

And a single hardware pack could be just supporting all (or part of) of these boards. lt-mx5 is a suffix we are using to represent the support status for both of the above two boards.

Now let's take an example i.MX6DQ board (mx6dqs) is going to be supported one day, and we could either have a new lt-mx6 to support that board, or if a single kernel is possible - encode mx6dqs support in lt-mx5 as well.

And to use an SoC name for the "--dev" has two problems:

  - it's a bit confusing as it doesn't support all boards of that SoC, e.g. people will assume a "imx53" --dev argument is going to support all imx53 boards

  - and for the cases of Freescale where a single hwpack can cover both imx51 and imx53, the name is a bit inconsistent

[Mattias Backman (mabac)]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Eric Miao <email address hidden> wrote:
> My understanding of "--dev" option is to specify a board name instead of
> specifying the SoC name. Whether the actual support for that board is
> available or not will be encoded (hopefully in v2) in the hardware pack.
> And l-m-c (or l-a-m-c) shall be intelligent enough to figure that out
> and do the right thing. So my strong preference would be the original
> name 'mx53loco', and hopefully l-a-m-c could adapt to it.

Thanks for your reply. Then I think that I should land the change
proposed in https://code.launchpad.net/~mabac/linaro-image-tools/bug-837201/+merge/73362

Can anyone with a different opinion clarify that in the merge proposal, please?

[Zach Pfeffer (pfefferz)]

I'm cool with using the board name.