search

OE4T / meta-tegra

BSP layer for NVIDIA Jetson platforms, based on L4T
MIT License
407 stars 224 forks source link

backport l4t-32.4.3 from `dunfell` to `thud` #674

Closed fei4xu closed 3 years ago

fei4xu commented 3 years ago

Hi,

We are using a 3rd party hardware which has systemd 237 and glibc 2.27, both of which are default versions as in yocto sumo. I have tested that if I copy the recipes from sumo to thud, they can still be compiled, but they will fail if compiled in warrior or later yocto, so I was basically stuck to sumo or thud.

I can verify that current thud-l4t-r32.3.1 branch can compile just fine, as long as I follow the readme files of that branch. But r32.3.1 is from JetPack 4.3 and I would like to use JetPack 4.4 as that 3rd party hardware's default jetpack version.

I'd like to check how hard it will be if I decided to backport from dunfell-l4t-r32.4.3 to current thud-l4t-r32.3.1? I have some yocto experience mainly as a user to call bitbake but not a developer to write .bb files.

I have checked this PR: Backporting Linux4Tegra R32.3.1, JetPack 4.3 to Yocto/OE release Thud #263 I think in theory another backport of JetPack 4.4 from dunfell to thud should be possible.

What's the suggested first step?

1) Copy all the files directly from meta-tegra dunfell to thud? I have tested and it did not work.

2) To compare what's changed between dunfell-l4t-r32.3.1 to dunfell-l4t-r32.4.3 and do the same thing on thud-l4t-r32.3.1 line by line? Unfortunately there is no branch named dunfell-l4t-r32.3.1 so I can't do the comparison.

3) to check the history of dunfell to compare current r32.4.3 branch head to the version when it had r32.3.1? which commit should I begin with?

I really want to hear expert's suggestions here.

Thanks, Fei

madisongh commented 3 years ago

The dunfell branch (with no version suffix) is based off L4T R32.3.1, so you could use that for your comparison option (2).

You may also need to update thud-l4t-r32.3.1 with any applicable fixes/updates from dunfell... that backport happened a year ago, so it may be missing some changes that would simplify the upgrade.

fei4xu commented 3 years ago

Hi @madisongh , I think I have a candidate for thud--l4t-r32.4.3 now. What I have done is actually ugly: just copy recipes from dunfell-l4t-r32.4.3 to thud--l4t-r32.3.1 but not all of them (at least I left OpenCV because OpenCV 4.1 will not compile in thud anyway).

If I create a PR with those hard copied recipes, will it be accepted? (The ideal way is to to use cherry picks as much as possible, but there are too many commits depend on each other and I can't figure them out.)

madisongh commented 3 years ago

@fei4xu I've created a thud-l4t-r32.4.3 branch based off thud-l4t-r32.3.1. Go ahead and submit your PR for the new branch, and I'll look it over. The copy-over approach is fine.