Closed
Bug 1008809
Opened 11 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
[Flame][NFC] libnfc-nci in external folder doesn't sync with libnfc-nci.so used in flame
Categories
(Firefox OS Graveyard :: NFC, defect)
Tracking
(blocking-b2g:2.0+, b2g-v2.0 fixed, b2g-v2.1 fixed)
People
(Reporter: dimi, Assigned: viralwang)
References
Details
Attachments
(2 files)
currently nfcd will include header file from external/libnfc-nci which is downloaded from https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/libnfc-nci But in flame we should use T2M modified libnfc-nci otherwise header file and libnfc-nci.so will not match
Blocks: b2g-nfc
Updated•10 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → dlee
blocking-b2g: --- → backlog
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
ni? Viral for Flame image issue.
blocking-b2g: backlog → 2.0+
Flags: needinfo?(vwang)
Comment 5•10 years ago
|
||
We need git.mozilla.org mirrors if we want to do this. Is modifying libnfc-nci headers expected? I expected some sort of interface to protect us from implementation specific details..
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Michael Wu [:mwu] from comment #5) > We need git.mozilla.org mirrors if we want to do this. > > Is modifying libnfc-nci headers expected? I expected some sort of interface > to protect us from implementation specific details.. Yes, I think the header files of libnfc-nci are different is reasonable for this case. Flame use NXP chipset and it is compatible with NCI protocol. The header files provide not only API but also pre-defined value or structure which may vary according to different hardware chipset (NXP, broadcom).
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8426086 -
Flags: review?(mwu) → review+
Comment 7•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8426088 [details]
build libnfc-nci from partner code
As usual, please make sure there's a git.mozilla.org mirror before merging this. Also, I think there's another pull request which adds this remote, so things may conflict.
Attachment #8426088 -
Flags: review?(mwu) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•10 years ago
|
||
Hi Michael, For libnfc-nci, we don't have plan to modify the code in our side. I think we can use partner's repo to reduce our maintin effort. I also list the difference in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1018871#c11 we can know the commits added in partner's github May I have your suggestion that why we should have a mirror in git.mozilla.org if we won't send any PR? Thanks :)
Flags: needinfo?(mwu)
Comment 9•10 years ago
|
||
You need it because tbpl builds may break if you don't have a mirror. The build automation doesn't use repos that don't have remotes on git.mozilla.org.
Flags: needinfo?(mwu)
Comment 10•10 years ago
|
||
libnfc-nci from caf can't work but it works from oem partner repo. If a mirror of oem repo in git.mozilla.org is necessary, who will sync and solve the conflicts in the future? Is libnfc-nci the only one mirrored repo? Or how many repos are necessarily mirrored from oem repos?
Comment 13•10 years ago
|
||
Hi Viral, I'm setting the target milestone to Sprint4 (before June20) because we are going to have NFC workshop which happens in the week of June23. I hope we'll be able to use Flame to showcase tap2pay scenario for partners at that time.
Target Milestone: --- → 2.0 S4 (20june)
Comment 14•10 years ago
|
||
Viral, it seems we only need that you get a mirror for this repo to land this code. Is everything on track ?
Flags: needinfo?(vwang)
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•10 years ago
|
||
Partner provide latest rom (v10H) this week and also push updated code to github. I will check the change again and see if there's any other repo need mirrored. Thanks :)
Flags: needinfo?(vwang)
Assignee | ||
Comment 16•10 years ago
|
||
we already have a mirrored repository in bug 1024403.
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 17•10 years ago
|
||
2.0+ will be uplifted automatically, right?
Blocks: b2g-NFC-2.0
Flags: needinfo?(bbajaj)
Comment 18•10 years ago
|
||
device-flame/master: https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/device-flame/commit/33faca8033c6f8cda0c383ab40d69c7a45e6db38 b2g-manifest/master: https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/b2g-manifest/commit/868db7b6cf8675378392a3c74c4bb592ac63c69f (In reply to Wesley Huang [:wesley_huang] from comment #17) > 2.0+ will be uplifted automatically, right? Yes, once it's confirmed to have stuck on master.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
status-b2g-v2.0:
--- → affected
status-b2g-v2.1:
--- → fixed
Flags: needinfo?(bbajaj)
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: 2.0 S4 (20june) → 2.0 S5 (4july)
Comment 19•10 years ago
|
||
device-flame/v2.0: https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/device-flame/commit/617e4eea4c3677eb3d2aa2d8aa34d9a790e55159 b2g-manifest/v2.0: https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/b2g-manifest/commit/06e7fa6793d836cf5fdf7009092882a11c0cf5c5 My only concern is that we're now building Flame on v2.0 against the tip revision of the foxfone-one branch, when we're specifically trying to avoid that on the release branches.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•