14:39 <umbramalison> Hi, may I ask why we can't use upstream sources for Linux and U-boot? I see that beagle repos are forked from TI. But I also see that TI have upstream support for beagle and components that derive the beagle board.

14:41 <umbramalison> (at the same time, i'm working on a custom am57xx board, i guess similar to X15, and I can't get it to boot from upstream linux. it does boot on 4.19.y from TI repo though.)

14:48 <NishanthMenon> umbramalison: can you report the kernel problems or u-boot problems in upstream mailing list and see if there is any discussions or resolutions we can do in upstream itself?

14:50 <umbramalison> I think firstly, as I'm quite new to all this, I just wanted to ground my expectations. Seeing that beagle board community maintain their own repos, forked from TI, suggested to me that it might not be an expectation that upstream would work in this way

14:53 <umbramalison> NishanthMenon, if full support was upstreamed, then why would the beagle board repos fork from TI and not upstream? but maybe the reason is for something that I don't care for (like GPU support), but I guess I was expecting to hear that upstream support for TI is known broken because TI have not provided acceptable solutions? or something like that

14:56 <NishanthMenon> Upstream is a community effort. We try our best to keep things working, but doesn't mean we succeeded all the time (practically a whack-a-mole job). Hence lts baselines and vendor forks..

14:59 <NishanthMenon> We have started earlier this year to help punch in test results to kernelci.org and running a pilot internally as well for UBoot etc testing (k3 devices as a focus ATM). Just saying.. feel free to call us out where we fail. Also #linux-ti is a nice additional place to discuss.

15:01 <umbramalison> NishanthMenon, well I'm not intending to come across as a critique at all, but yes If have found something broken I will say, but right now I couldn't tell you that, It's more likely that I just misunderstood something.

15:04 <umbramalison> just to take your reply, and apply it to AM57xx. My understanding is that TI officially supported AM57xx in their own fork up to tag "4.19.y". But their fork continues to through 5.x and into 6.x. So is it the case that AM57xx is still supported there, or is that work of this community, to keep those older SoC's supported in the latest TI offerings?

15:05 <umbramalison> and thanks for letting me know about #linux-ti

15:52 <NishanthMenon> Hmm.. https://software-dl.ti.com/cicd-report/linux/ -> apparently TI's automated testing does'nt cover am57xx . it will be good to ask on e2e.ti.com the status

17:04 <umbramalison> thanks for that link. I hadn't imagined really that AM57xx would be beyond TI's testing plan. In my mind that makes it obsolete, but it's available to buy. interesting.

19:32 <NishanthMenon> umbramalison: not sure that is the case.. in many cases, the cadence of releases are less frequent - completely business driven discussion. but do ask on e2e.ti.com for more authoritative answer

21:07 <umbramalison> NishanthMenon, apologies. on reflection, that was a bit terse of me.

21:08 <NishanthMenon> umbramalison: some of it is deserved, no harm done ;)

21:08 <NishanthMenon> umbramalison: keep us honest. that we appreciate a lot :)