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)

ARM
Gonk (Firefox OS)
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(blocking-b2g:2.0+, b2g-v2.0 fixed, b2g-v2.1 fixed)

RESOLVED FIXED
2.0 S5 (4july)
blocking-b2g 2.0+
Tracking Status
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
Assignee: nobody → dlee
blocking-b2g: --- → backlog
ni? Viral for Flame image issue.
blocking-b2g: backlog → 2.0+
Flags: needinfo?(vwang)
Attachment #8426086 - Flags: review?(mwu)
Flags: needinfo?(vwang)
Attached file build libnfc-nci from partner code (deleted) —
Attachment #8426088 - Flags: review?(mwu)
Viral is working on this.
Assignee: dlee → vwang
Blocks: 1009139
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..
(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).
Depends on: 1016910
Attachment #8426086 - Flags: review?(mwu) → review+
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+
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)
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)
Blocks: 989889
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?
I know what's going on about tbpl mirror now.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=994521
Depends on: 1017464
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)
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)
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)
Depends on: 1024403
we already have a mirrored repository in bug 1024403.
Keywords: checkin-needed
2.0+ will be uplifted automatically, right?
Blocks: b2g-NFC-2.0
Flags: needinfo?(bbajaj)
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
Flags: needinfo?(bbajaj)
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: 2.0 S4 (20june) → 2.0 S5 (4july)
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.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: