GDP/meta-ivi rocko wayland-ivi-extension 2.0 integration issues

Stephen Lawrence stephen.lawrence at renesas.com
Fri Jan 19 08:31:22 EST 2018


Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friedrich, Eugen (ADITG/ESB) [mailto:efriedrich at de.adit-jv.com]
> Sent: 18 January 2018 17:37
> To: Stephen Lawrence <stephen.lawrence at renesas.com>; REE
> eucan at de.adit-jv.com <eucan at de.adit-jv.com>; Andreasson, Oscar
> (Pelagicore) <oscar.andreasson at pelagicore.com>
> Cc: genivi-dev at lists.genivi.org; genivi-ivi-layer-management at lists.genivi.org
> Subject: RE: GDP/meta-ivi rocko wayland-ivi-extension 2.0 integration issues
> 
> Hi Stephen, all,
> 
> First all sorry for the confusion we are causing now with this release,
> I shortly explain where the issue is coming from and then list some option
> how to proceed here...
> 
> Issue: 	I missed the patch which is required on top of weston 2.0.0
> mentioned below to work with wayland-ivi-extension 2.0/2.1.
> 	it was proposed very long time ago to weston and we had this in the
> local repository, so it completely disappeared from my memory
> 	and I did a wrong statement to the reference implementation in the
> compliance proposal:
> 	the only combination which is available complete in upstream is:
> 	weston 3.0 and wayland-ivi-extension 2.1

OK. I expect we have all been there. I know I have.
Let's move onto a successful integration.

> 
> Proposal: I will update the reference implementation to the weston 3.0

I am not a SAT/Compliance Team member and I don't think it is a mandatory 
requirement but it might be neater to list in the compliance proposal what
you use and ideally what is in meta-ivi. 

Alternatively you might list both options.

One challenge the Compliance Team face when reviewing Compliance applications
is mapping the AC spec version to implementation details/versions. So clarity
of what they might most likely receive is useful to them. So I would at the very least
make them aware of both options when the Compliance Proposal for is reviewed
with the SAT.

That is just an opinion and I will disclose a bias to Weston 2.0 below. Ultimately
listing Weston 3.0 does not block other implementations of course.

> 	   The compliance itself does not contain any reference to the weston
> version, the Compositor is an abstract component and has to support some
> wayland protocols which are xml files.
> 	   Please correct me if I have a wrong understanding for the
> compliance scope.

For a definitive answer you need a SAT/Compliance Team member or Gunnar.
That said, I believe you are right as a P1 AC you need a reference implementation 
to demonstrate the mandatory parts of the spec. The reference impl needs to be 
available and may be referred to but does not itself become part of the spec.
So as you say if it used Weston 3.0, Weston 3.0 does not become a P1 requirement.

> 	   For the Baseline I would take the wayland-ivi-extension 2.1 and for
> weston there are two options:
> 	   1)  weston 2.0.0 plus
> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/wayland/weston/commit/?h=3.0&id=deee858
> 		This version is included in yocto already so minimum risk, only
> additional patch is not optimal, and it will be not the referenced version in
> the compliance proposal (maybe not that important)
> 	   2)  weston 3.0.0 clean
> 		This is not in the yocto so potential risk is higher, from the
> feature set point of view: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-
> devel/2017-August/034749.html (not much)
> 	Internally in ADIT we are not switched to 3.0.0 We just have done
> some short checks on Broxton and Renesas, those where fine.

Disclosure: with my Renesas hat on I would prefer Weston 2.0 + patch.
Although a patch is not great, Weston 2.0 is the version used in YP 2.4 (rocko)
Poky Meta and is the version we have tested and developed against in recent 
months ahead of an upcoming YP 2.4 based Yocto BSP release. We choose Weston
2.0 in part because that was the guidance we received from the Compositor
(ivi-extension) maintainers. Of course it is also the version you guys developed 
and tested with.

I expect our Wayland team have tried Weston 3.0 as you have for some early
sanity testing, but it will not have received the testing 2.0 has. Particularly integrated
with other frameworks like Qt, Gst etc. Not being a Weston engineer I can't speak
to what advantages 3.0 brings or the impact of the API breakage in 3.0.

However that is just an opinion as input. I have no deciding vote here. The Baseline
Maintainer and yourselves are the ones most directly supporting what is released.
So I am guided by what you agree between yourselves. I can ask internally about 3.0
if that helps.

> 
> The current issue we see with the GDP are most probably not caused by the
> weston differences and needs to be fixed in anyway.
> 
> Emre and me are currently in India on the business trip and could support
> active from 25th of Jan so next Thursday. Let me know if we help further.

I appreciate you both taking the time to provide replies when you are on a biz trip.

Cheers

Steve

> 
> Best regards
> 
> Eugen Friedrich
> Engineering Software Base (ADITG/ESB)
> 
> Tel. +49 5121 49 6921
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: genivi-ivi-layer-management [mailto:genivi-ivi-layer-management-
> > bounces at lists.genivi.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Lawrence
> > Sent: Donnerstag, 18. Januar 2018 16:27
> > To: Ucan, Emre (ADITG/ESB); Andreasson, Oscar (Pelagicore)
> > Cc: genivi-dev at lists.genivi.org; genivi-ivi-layer-
> management at lists.genivi.org
> > Subject: RE: GDP/meta-ivi rocko wayland-ivi-extension 2.0 integration
> issues
> >
> > Hi Emre,
> >
> > Thanks for the detail. It helps a lot.
> > Questions below.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ucan, Emre (ADITG/ESB) [mailto:eucan at de.adit-jv.com]
> > > Sent: 18 January 2018 15:10
> > > To: Stephen Lawrence <stephen.lawrence at renesas.com>; Andreasson,
> Oscar
> > > (Pelagicore) <oscar.andreasson at pelagicore.com>
> > > Cc: genivi-dev at lists.genivi.org;
> > > genivi-ivi-layer-management at lists.genivi.org
> > > Subject: RE: GDP/meta-ivi rocko wayland-ivi-extension 2.0 integration
> > > issues
> > >
> > > Hi Stephen,
> > >
> >
> > I would like to be 100% clear on which patches you mean below :)
> >
> > > Our options:
> > >
> > > Weston 2.0 + 1 patch with Wayland IVI Extension (2.0 or 2.1)
> >
> > When you say 1 patch you mean your Weston patch below?
> > Neither IVI-Extension 2.0 or 2.1 need to be patched.
> >
> > > Weston 3.0 with Wayland IVI Extension (2.0 + 1 patch or 2.1)
> >
> > In this case the only patch required is the IVI-Extension patch below when
> IVI-
> > Extension 2.0 is used?
> >
> > >
> > > Weston patch:
> > >
> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/wayland/weston/commit/?h=3.0&id=deee858
> > > b0b199d8cfa8033a46d7078f30b23725e
> > > Wayland IVI Extension patch: https://github.com/GENIVI/wayland-ivi-
> > > extension/commit/a25f5eb8e31a88b63f5a6721b403df0e8f255f5b
> > >
> > > In my opinion, the best opition is to integrate Wayland IVI Extension
> > > 2.1 with weston 2.0 + patch. Because rocko also supports weston 2.0.
> > > It is better tested.
> >
> > That's helpful thanks. That personally makes sense to me if that has been
> the
> > target of testing and I recall Eugen saying Weston 3.0 doesn't bring much
> > advantage.
> > It also avoids the risk of breakage in other packages when a later version is
> used.
> >
> > Oscar, what's your opinion?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Emre
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stephen Lawrence [mailto:stephen.lawrence at renesas.com]
> > > Sent: Donnerstag, 18. Januar 2018 13:05
> > > To: Andreasson, Oscar (Pelagicore); Ucan, Emre (ADITG/ESB)
> > > Cc: genivi-dev at lists.genivi.org;
> > > genivi-ivi-layer-management at lists.genivi.org
> > > Subject: RE: GDP/meta-ivi rocko wayland-ivi-extension 2.0 integration
> > > issues
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I feel like we are in danger of mixing up topics here, between GDP and
> > > the Baseline and different versions of IVI-Extension.
> > >
> > > The immediate goal is the successful integration of the Compositor
> > > component, which includes IVI-Extension, into the Yocto Baseline (meta-
> ivi).
> > > As the first Genivi 14 release P-0.1 of meta-ivi is now due.
> > >
> > > GDP is a useful delivery and of course is built on the Baseline, but
> > > adapting GDP to changes in the APIs is not a prerequisite for the
> > > delivery of a Baseline release unless we feel we are dealing with a
> > > stop-ship issue. It doesn't sound like that is the case, but feel free to give
> your
> > opinion.
> > >
> > > The last two IVI-Extension releases 2.0 and 2.1 are not yet in
> > > compliance so we have the option of shipping 1.13 if we wished.
> > > Although personally I feel comfortable slipping
> > > P-0.1 a few days if we can integrate the latest.
> > >
> > > Emre, thank you for your replies so far. I see in the team's Genivi 14
> > > compliance proposal [1] version >= 2.1.0 is listed. So my assumption
> > > is we should be targeting that at least by P-1.0.
> > > Correct me if I am wrong.
> > >
> > > Further, can you summarise what is required for integration of the
> > > reference implementation for IVI-Extension 2.0 and 2.1 please so we
> > > can be clear on what component versions are required and to help with
> > > decision making. I am thinking of what Weston version and any patches
> > > and to what component that are required. For example, in October on
> > > the mailing list we got the input that Weston 2.0 was required for
> > > IVI-Extension 2.0 [2]. There was no mention of patches though.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://collab.genivi.org/wiki/display/genivi/Compositor+Specification
> > > #Com
> > > positorSpecification-CompositorVersion3.0.0
> > > [2] https://lists.genivi.org/pipermail/genivi-projects/2017-
> > > October/005682.html
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Steve
> > > BIT Lead
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Andreasson, Oscar (Pelagicore)
> > > > [mailto:oscar.andreasson at pelagicore.com]
> > > > Sent: 18 January 2018 09:19
> > > > To: Stephen Lawrence <stephen.lawrence at renesas.com>; REE
> > > > eucan at de.adit-jv.com <eucan at de.adit-jv.com>
> > > > Cc: genivi-dev at lists.genivi.org;
> > > > genivi-ivi-layer-management at lists.genivi.org
> > > > Subject: Re: GDP/meta-ivi rocko wayland-ivi-extension 2.0
> > > > integration issues
> > > >
> > > > Hi Emre,
> > > >
> > > > It's using the ivi-input-controller. I've been running from the 2.0
> > > > branch but patched it to remove the use_xkbcommon separately as I
> > > > didn't know you already did it ;).
> > > > Anyways, I've swapped over to
> > > > the 2.1 tag now and will see if that makes a difference.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 18:26 +0000, Ucan, Emre (ADITG/ESB) wrote:
> > > > > Hi Oscar,
> > > > >
> > > > > Does Weston use ivi-input-controller ? you can check it from the
> > > > > config
> > > file:
> > > > > /etc/xdg/weston/weston.ini
> > > > >
> > > > > If ivi-input-controller is used, you need this patch
> > > > "https://github.com/GENIVI/wayland-ivi-extens
> > > > > ion/commit/a25f5eb8e31a88b63f5a6721b403df0e8f255f5b".
> > > > > You can cherry pick it or you can use wayland-ivi-extension 2.1
> version.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > Emre Ucan
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: genivi-ivi-layer-management
> > > > > [mailto:genivi-ivi-layer-management-
> > > > bounces at lists.genivi.org] On
> > > > > Behalf Of Andreasson, Oscar (Pelagicore)
> > > > > Sent: Mittwoch, 17. Januar 2018 14:25
> > > > > To: stephen.lawrence at renesas.com
> > > > > Cc: genivi-dev at lists.genivi.org; genivi-ivi-layer-
> > > > management at lists.genivi.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: GDP/meta-ivi rocko wayland-ivi-extension 2.0
> > > > > integration
> > > > issues
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 18:21 +0000, Stephen Lawrence wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Stephen Lawrence
> > > > > > > Sent: 16 January 2018 18:04
> > > > > > > To: 'Andreasson, Oscar (Pelagicore)'
> > > > > > > <oscar.andreasson at pelagicore.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: genivi-dev at lists.genivi.org;
> > > > > > > genivi-ivi-layer-management at lists.genivi.org
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: GDP/meta-ivi rocko wayland-ivi-extension 2.0
> > > > > > > integration issues
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These are the installed versions of packages currently (if I
> > > > > > > > missed
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > something,
> > > > > > > > let me know):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > weston                                              :3.0.0-r3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is that a typo? I thought the ivi-extension team had indicated
> > > > > > > they used Weston 2.0 for the ivi-extension 2.0 reference
> > > implementation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I couldn't find the email I was looking for in the ILM ML
> > > > > > archive, but here is the reference from the genivi-projects ML
> > > > > > archive [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > https://lists.genivi.org/pipermail/genivi-projects/2017-October/
> > > > > > 00
> > > > > > 5682
> > > > > > .html
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting, they got dependencies on Weston 3.0 in there, at
> > > > > least this
> > > > one:
> > > > >
> > > > > lyt->screen_remove_layer(iviscrn->output, layout_layer);
> > > > >
> > > > > screen_remove_layer was added in Weston 3.0 if you look here in
> > > > > branch
> > > > 2.0 it's not there:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/wayland-project/weston/blob/2.0/ivi-shell/ivi-l
> > > > > ay
> > > > > out-
> > > > export.h
> > > > >
> > > > > But in branch 3.0 and master it's there:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/wayland-project/weston/blob/3.0/ivi-shell/ivi-l
> > > > > ay
> > > > > out-
> > > > export.h
> > > > > https://github.com/wayland-project/weston/blob/master/ivi-shell/iv
> > > > > i-
> > > > layout-export.h
> > > > >
> > > > > I did remember seeing that mail you pointed out, but figured I got
> > > > > it the
> > > > wrong way around in my
> > > > > memory and that we actually depend on 3.0, not 2.0...
> > > > >
> > > > > It was a simple fix, but maybe the ILM needs to be updated to
> > > > > remove the
> > > > dependency?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can discuss in the BIT call tomorrow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > BIT Lead
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > Oscar Andreasson
> > > > > Lead Software Engineer
> > > > >
> > > > > Pelagicore AB
> > > > > Östrahamngatan 16, Gothenburg, Sweden
> > > > > +46 (0)761337765
> > > > > oscar.andreasson at pelagicore.com
> > > > > www.pelagicore.com
> > > > >
> > > > > PELAGICORE a part of LUXOFT
> > > > >
> > > > > Registered Office Gothenburg, Sweden Registration No. 556780-4199
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > genivi-ivi-layer-management mailing list genivi-ivi-layer-
> > > > management at lists.genivi.org
> > > > > https://lists.genivi.org/mailman/listinfo/genivi-ivi-layer-managem
> > > > > en
> > > > > t
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > Oscar Andreasson
> > > > Lead Software Engineer
> > > >
> > > > Pelagicore AB
> > > > Östrahamngatan 16, Gothenburg, Sweden
> > > > +46 (0)761337765
> > > > oscar.andreasson at pelagicore.com
> > > > www.pelagicore.com
> > > >
> > > > PELAGICORE a part of LUXOFT
> > > >
> > > > Registered Office Gothenburg, Sweden Registration No. 556780-4199
> > _______________________________________________
> > genivi-ivi-layer-management mailing list genivi-ivi-layer-
> > management at lists.genivi.org
> > https://lists.genivi.org/mailman/listinfo/genivi-ivi-layer-management


More information about the genivi-ivi-layer-management mailing list