From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F380949 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 02:39:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qk0-f175.google.com (mail-qk0-f175.google.com [209.85.220.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A84D1EE for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 02:39:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id h8so74572918qka.1 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:39:21 -0700 (PDT) To: Masami Hiramatsu References: <57C78BE9.30009@linaro.org> <20160902134711.movdpffcdcsx6kzv@thunk.org> <57D62B3F.2070900@linaro.org> <20160913010930.24ff31da6e055a54136a3797@kernel.org> From: Alex Shi Message-ID: <57D766D4.8020303@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 10:39:16 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160913010930.24ff31da6e055a54136a3797@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "ltsi-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Mark Brown , Tsugikazu Shibata , Greg KH Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [LTSI-dev] [Stable kernel] feature backporting collaboration List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 09/13/2016 12:09 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> Thanks for Tsugikazu's explanation of LTSI! >> > LSK follows the very similar rules as LTSI, if anyone like to look into >> > LSK's policies: https://wiki.linaro.org/LSK >> > From 'LSK INCLUSION CONSIDERATIONS' chapter. >> > >> > Compare to LTSI, LSK has newer LTS, and more upstream features >> > backporting which requested by many SoC vendors. Apparently these are >> > needed widely in industry. And the separately feature branch give more >> > feasibility on feature selection to user. If don't like any features >> > branches, That just left pure LTS. > If I understand correctly, the major difference of LSK and LTSI is the SoC > neutral or not. LSK focuses to backport "features" not "SoC/board supports" > because many vendors may port their kernel on LSK to make a stable > BSP/AOSP kernel for their devices. But LTSI aims to help vendors to > push their patches to upstream by giving them a motivation to merge > their patches within the LTSI merge window. Yes, that's right. Since each of vendors often has different drivers/devices for their hardware, it's hard to LSK to adopt and test them, especial when the SoC platform is still hold in lab. > > If we merge the effort of LTSI and LSK, we'll also give vendors a chance > to *backport* their SoC support from upstream. > Yes, that would give some extra chance to share our work. On the contrary, the usage/test feedback will make LSK better. Thanks Alex