Versions Compared

Old Version 146

changes.mady.by.user Gunnar Andersson

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Gunnar Andersson

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: bugfix

...

Minute takers according to this page 


July 12, 2021

Participants:

  • Stephen (Renesas)
  • Adam (Kernkonzept)
  • Matti (Opensynergy)
  • Gunnar (GENIVI)
  • Oleksandr (EPAM)
  • Kai (EB)

Minutes

  • Gunnar: I met with Arm (Bernhard) and Francois Ozog (active in Linaro).  We discussed virtual platform specification, if there are additional automotive-specific hardware that need VIRTIO support (e.g. do we have a proposal for FM tuner? (No, not currently))

Discussion on the usage of virtual platforms as a hardware-portability solution:

  • Gunnar: We see this trend.  I'd like to analyze this idea further, compared to for example just making stable user-space APIs and creating new kernel drivers for new hardware. 
    • => Is this not just shifting portability work "somewhere else". 
    • Let's analyze how "virtual platform API is stable" is different from "user-space API is stable" (i.e. just port drivers to new hardware..)
  • Adam: BSPs that add a lot of patches to Linux get stuck on older versions.  Not using mainline.  Updating to new kernel drivers difficult (N.B. officially no APIs are stable inside Linux kernel)
  • Matti: Linux kernel in particular, is an operating system kernel and a hardware-abstraction at the same time, which is challenging.
    • Future challenges: Value-add for SoCs could be difficult if the [hardware abstraction] API is limiting.
  • The virtual platform / VIRTIO / Trout and others.  It seems the "new" distinction is a clear focus on a hardware-abstraction layer?
    • (partly agreed, discussed the existence of firmware as one abstraction already used, and on PC side the hardware it self was standardized, etc.   Overall, a complex reality)
  • Summary:
    • Kernel updates are driven by fast development, security issues, etc. 
    • Fast changes, no internal API stability guarantee etc. = updating drivers is a major issue.
    • It seems this situation can't be avoided, and the industry is looking for a solution to the challenge.  
    • The theory seems to be that keeping API stable and efficiently port to new hardware, could be more feasible to do in the virtual platform.
  • Discussion turned to evaluating the effort (that the industry is also considering) to create new kernel(s) instead, as a Linux alternative (for safety, and development concerns as shown above). 
    E.g. if they have a POSIX API, is that "enough".  => No... could still be a large effort to port existing functionality.
    • Gunnar: As an example, consider systemd which early on used Linux-only APIs.  And then a lot of functionality built on systemd.  Such examples makes porting software a challenge.
  • Also discussed how large part of Linux' functionality is actually used in practice in the industry?
  • Matti:  (Explicit example that shows the current situation)

    • io_uring recently added to Linux.  It accelerates applications a lot.  A hardware vendor that is able to use these latest features could have an advantage (hardware itself not faster, but the software runs faster).  

    • => With a virtual platform abstraction, updating to a new kernel with the new features should be feasible.


June 2021

  • Regular meetings held every week.  No specific meeting minutes written.  Results in AVPS and topic planning (link below)
  • AVPS v2.0 release.
  • Working on deep-dive topic planning

December 14 2020 → May 2021

December 7

  • Participants: Stephen, Gunnar, Dmitry, Adam, Peter

...

  • Lots of topics (5 presentations), lots of discussion
  • Little time for Q&A on each - basically every topic needs deeper investigation and discussions
  • See presentations


May 14 - cancelled due to AMM

...