[PATCH 5/5] tegra: make target source-only

[Koen Vandeputte]

On 16.06.21 15:43, Tomasz Maciej Nowak wrote:
> W dniu 15.06.2021 o 16:05, Koen Vandeputte pisze:
>> On 13.06.21 18:28, Tomasz Maciej Nowak wrote:
>>> Looking at OpenWrt downloading statistics this target has non-existent
>>> userbase apart from me. Mark it as source-only to skip the build by
>>> buildbots and not waste further the resources.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Maciej Nowak <tmn505 at gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> I'll keep this target in good condition in forseable future. If anyone
>>> would suggest to drop the target, I'm not opposed.
>> I've been thinking for some time to try to support nvidia Jetson (and some carrier boards)
> Great, finally someone interested in this niche target.

Yeah.

It pretty frustrating to see a lot of splats in different drivers which 
have already been solved long time ago ..
2nd reason is that the latest roadmap only mentions a kernel bump to 
5.10 in .. 2H 2022!  so it will stay on 4.9 for another year ..
Ubuntu 20.04 support is also scheduled for .. 04-2022 .. when the next 
LTS is released :sigh:
a 3rd reason is the size of the whole thing ..  It's pretty annoying to 
send an update of a few gigabytes over a 5mbps vsat link ..

>
>> as L4T is really .. really buggy and running way behind.
> Looks like not much changed since Tegra 2 days.
>
>> Also some commonly used packages are also present in OpenWRT like gstreamer,  opencv, ..
> Hmm..., last time I checked NVIDIA usually only provided modified binaries for user-space.
> In Tegra2&3 days they rarely published the sources of their changes, only compiled
> libraries with headers, did it change since that time? Did they start to push their
> implementations upstream?

No they don't, but I meant the framework is already present.
Due to this, adding hw accelerated will be very very difficult ... but 
it should be already possible to just get it working .. even if only CPU 
for now.

I'm looking at this as "another project" afterwards.

>
>> I was thinking to use this target as a guideline for trying to do that.
> This would be similar split as in mvebu, where one subtarget would be armv7 and second one
> a armv8. They probably won't share many drivers, but that's not much of a concern.
> The boot procedure probably changed which means the SD card image structure also changed,
> but that shouldn't be much of a problem.
>
>> Would you be interested?
> Yes, I'll gladly help with it in any way I can.
cool!
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Koen
>>
> Regards.
>