Hi, there are new LetuxOS kernels:
letux-5.2-rc1 letux-5.1.3 letux-5.0.17 letux-4.19.44 letux-4.14.120
Please see:
projects.goldelico.com/p/gta04-kernel/
Unfortunately display drivers in letux-5.2-rc1 for almost all devices are broken. So please either help to fix the issues or wait for a later -rc.
Just in case you are not aware, letux-4.19.44 is the current longterm kernel and recommended for daily use on our devices. You can also install it in LetuxOS Debian systems through
apt-get install linux-image-letux linux-rootfs-letux
and then an
apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
is sufficient to get future kernel (and other) updates.
BTW, here is another trick: You may (not) know that LetuxOS images created by makesd come rooted. This means you can simply ssh as root into the device without password check. This is quite helpful for developers and debugging.
You can just do
apt-get remove letux-ssh-root
to disable. Or apt-get install letux-ssh-root to re-enable. The latter of course means that you still have some root access to the device. Either through sudo or the serial console.
What else is going on in the LetuxOS eco-system?
We now support MIPS devices, not only ARM. Well one. The Imagination CI20 board. Just do "makesd ci20" to get a first SD card.
Behind the scenes, we have debootstrapped mipsel variants of the Letux Debian images. And adapted the kernel defconfig so that we get a CI20 (Ingenic JZ4780) compatible kernel.
What is the motivation behind supporting yet another board (and not fixing all others first)? The main aspect is that the jz4780 also contains an SGX 544 GPU - like the OMAP5. This should help to get the SGX drivers working.
The other aspect is that "fixing all others first" is a Sisyphus work. It is a never ending story. So we can't wait until it is done. It will never be done ;) Therefore better contribute what can be done.
Finally, we have built a second generation (mechanical) prototype of the GTA15, the PyraPhone. Some photos can be seen in the twitter channel
and ED has made a nice video showing the Pyra and explaining the GTA15 board:
https://youtu.be/X3Su8LJnmd4 (GTA15 presentation is starting at 14:07).
Both devices can share almost the same software, so there is a big synergy between both projects.
Note that although it looks almost finished, this is just a mechanical protoype to find out if it can be built and if components are on good positions (almost all are, some are not that good). The PCB traces are incomplete which means that connecting a battery has no effect :)
On a very general view, we have achieved a lot, but still not enough to get the LetuxOS eco-system into a self-sustaining mode. What is lacking?
* users are missing because software is not good enough for daily use * hardware is missing because potential users complain about missing high-quality software * developers to polish the software are missing, because of missing (new) hardware
You see the vicious circle? Ideas how to magically break it?
BR and happy tinkering, Nikolaus
First of all, congratulations with the progress!
Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-21 10:22:50)
BTW, here is another trick: You may (not) know that LetuxOS images created by makesd come rooted. This means you can simply ssh as root into the device without password check. This is quite helpful for developers and debugging.
A password-less network-accesible backdoor maybe unknown to the system owner sounds dangerous to me: I recommend documenting that very clearly (at least) everywhere passwords are currently menioned in documentation.
On a very general view, we have achieved a lot, but still not enough to get the LetuxOS eco-system into a self-sustaining mode. What is lacking?
- users are missing because software is not good enough for daily use
- hardware is missing because potential users complain about missing high-quality software
- developers to polish the software are missing, because of missing (new) hardware
You see the vicious circle? Ideas how to magically break it?
Contributing as certified OSHW your own work on designing hardware helps encourage developers contributing to getting the devices supported in mainline linux and u-boot.
Getting bootloader and kernel code mainlined encourage distributors integrate and maintain support the the devices in their distributions.
Having devices supported in distributions helps users prioritize the devices over other (lesser free) options available to them.
- Jonas
Hi Jonas,
Am 21.05.2019 um 11:00 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard jonas@jones.dk:
First of all, congratulations with the progress!
Thanks!
Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-21 10:22:50)
BTW, here is another trick: You may (not) know that LetuxOS images created by makesd come rooted. This means you can simply ssh as root into the device without password check. This is quite helpful for developers and debugging.
A password-less network-accesible backdoor maybe unknown to the system owner sounds dangerous to me: I recommend documenting that very clearly (at least) everywhere passwords are currently menioned in documentation.
Yes, please feel free to document it in the Wiki.
On a very general view, we have achieved a lot, but still not enough to get the LetuxOS eco-system into a self-sustaining mode. What is lacking?
- users are missing because software is not good enough for daily use
- hardware is missing because potential users complain about missing
high-quality software
- developers to polish the software are missing, because of missing
(new) hardware
You see the vicious circle? Ideas how to magically break it?
Contributing as certified OSHW your own work on designing hardware helps encourage developers contributing to getting the devices supported in mainline linux and u-boot.
Getting bootloader and kernel code mainlined encourage distributors integrate and maintain support the the devices in their distributions.
Having devices supported in distributions helps users prioritize the devices over other (lesser free) options available to them.
This seems to assume that LetuxOS is not itself a distribution.
So what do you think would help users to prioritize LetuxOS over other distributions?
BR, Nikolaus
Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-21 12:02:06)
Hi Jonas,
Am 21.05.2019 um 11:00 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard jonas@jones.dk:
First of all, congratulations with the progress!
Thanks!
Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-21 10:22:50)
BTW, here is another trick: You may (not) know that LetuxOS images created by makesd come rooted. This means you can simply ssh as root into the device without password check. This is quite helpful for developers and debugging.
A password-less network-accesible backdoor maybe unknown to the system owner sounds dangerous to me: I recommend documenting that very clearly (at least) everywhere passwords are currently menioned in documentation.
Yes, please feel free to document it in the Wiki.
Is the wiki the only place passwords are mentioned? There are no other places users could be helped get notified about this open access?
Suggestion: Add a notice in /etc/motd
On a very general view, we have achieved a lot, but still not enough to get the LetuxOS eco-system into a self-sustaining mode. What is lacking?
- users are missing because software is not good enough for daily use
- hardware is missing because potential users complain about missing high-quality software
- developers to polish the software are missing, because of missing
(new) hardware
You see the vicious circle? Ideas how to magically break it?
Contributing as certified OSHW your own work on designing hardware helps encourage developers contributing to getting the devices supported in mainline linux and u-boot.
Getting bootloader and kernel code mainlined encourage distributors integrate and maintain support the the devices in their distributions.
Having devices supported in distributions helps users prioritize the devices over other (lesser free) options available to them.
This seems to assume that LetuxOS is not itself a distribution.
No.
For comparison, I work on the Debian distribution and dearly want the Olimex Teres-I DIY laptop well supported there, which requires escaping a similar vicious circle. I have appreciated the efforts done in other distributions - concretely I work done in Armbian and OpenSuSE was instrumental in getting the device supported in mainline u-boot (likely included with 2019.07 release), which benefits all competing distributions.
So what do you think would help users to prioritize LetuxOS over other distributions?
LetuxOS being superior to its competitors, obviously :-)
My point is that that I firmly believe that to get out of the vicious circle we _first_ need to collaborate and only _then_ compete (if needed at all, but that's a different discussion).
- Jonas
Hi Jonas,
Am 21.05.2019 um 12:26 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard jonas@jones.dk:
Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-21 12:02:06)
Hi Jonas,
Am 21.05.2019 um 11:00 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard jonas@jones.dk:
First of all, congratulations with the progress!
Thanks!
Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-21 10:22:50)
BTW, here is another trick: You may (not) know that LetuxOS images created by makesd come rooted. This means you can simply ssh as root into the device without password check. This is quite helpful for developers and debugging.
A password-less network-accesible backdoor maybe unknown to the system owner sounds dangerous to me: I recommend documenting that very clearly (at least) everywhere passwords are currently menioned in documentation.
Yes, please feel free to document it in the Wiki.
Is the wiki the only place passwords are mentioned? There are no other places users could be helped get notified about this open access? users
I have no idea about what users do... We need users to see the missing information and add it themselves. So we just must enable them to do it. Which is the Wiki.
Suggestion: Add a notice in /etc/motd
Hm. Do your ever read/see that?
On a very general view, we have achieved a lot, but still not enough to get the LetuxOS eco-system into a self-sustaining mode. What is lacking?
- users are missing because software is not good enough for daily
use
- hardware is missing because potential users complain about
missing high-quality software
- developers to polish the software are missing, because of missing
(new) hardware
You see the vicious circle? Ideas how to magically break it?
Contributing as certified OSHW your own work on designing hardware helps encourage developers contributing to getting the devices supported in mainline linux and u-boot.
Getting bootloader and kernel code mainlined encourage distributors integrate and maintain support the the devices in their distributions.
Having devices supported in distributions helps users prioritize the devices over other (lesser free) options available to them.
This seems to assume that LetuxOS is not itself a distribution.
No.
For comparison, I work on the Debian distribution and dearly want the Olimex Teres-I DIY laptop well supported there, which requires escaping a similar vicious circle.
It looks as if we need someone who actively wants to get the goodies from LetuxOS into standard Debian. We had such members in our community in the past, but they seem to have lost interest (or more likely time for pure volunteering).
I have appreciated the efforts done in other distributions - concretely I work done in Armbian and OpenSuSE was instrumental in getting the device supported in mainline u-boot (likely included with 2019.07 release), which benefits all competing distributions.
I just came to my mind what the most successful embedded Linux PC probably is: RasPi with Raspbian.
It is not even open hardware or software nor supported well by mainline which seems to contradict your suggestions. So what can we learn from it?
Some factors may be: * technical support by silicon vendor (brcm) * sales&marketing support by component/chip distributors * they likely can pay developers
So what do you think would help users to prioritize LetuxOS over other distributions?
LetuxOS being superior to its competitors, obviously :-)
Yes, it is superior in several aspects (e.g broad hardware support in kernel) but not all (e.g. GUI useability). That is what I mean with missing "quality for daily users".
My point is that that I firmly believe that to get out of the vicious circle we _first_ need to collaborate and only _then_ compete (if needed at all, but that's a different discussion).
Well, I am waiting for years for collaboration (the first LetuxOS dates back to 2006) but it seems as if other projects decided to compete and start from scratch instead of building on top of LetuxOS :)
BR, Nikolaus
Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-21 12:51:43)
Hi Jonas,
Am 21.05.2019 um 12:26 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard jonas@jones.dk:
Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-21 12:02:06)
Hi Jonas,
Am 21.05.2019 um 11:00 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard jonas@jones.dk:
First of all, congratulations with the progress!
Thanks!
Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-21 10:22:50)
BTW, here is another trick: You may (not) know that LetuxOS images created by makesd come rooted. This means you can simply ssh as root into the device without password check. This is quite helpful for developers and debugging.
A password-less network-accesible backdoor maybe unknown to the system owner sounds dangerous to me: I recommend documenting that very clearly (at least) everywhere passwords are currently menioned in documentation.
Yes, please feel free to document it in the Wiki.
Is the wiki the only place passwords are mentioned? There are no other places users could be helped get notified about this open access? users
I have no idea about what users do... We need users to see the missing information and add it themselves. So we just must enable them to do it. Which is the Wiki.
Makes sense that users document what they do.
Makes sense that developers document what they do.
You really expect users to understand and document backdoors better than the developers implementing them?!?
Suggestion: Add a notice in /etc/motd
Hm. Do your ever read/see that?
Why on Earth would I suggest it otherwise?
On a very general view, we have achieved a lot, but still not enough to get the LetuxOS eco-system into a self-sustaining mode. What is lacking?
- users are missing because software is not good enough for daily
use
- hardware is missing because potential users complain about
missing high-quality software
- developers to polish the software are missing, because of missing
(new) hardware
You see the vicious circle? Ideas how to magically break it?
Contributing as certified OSHW your own work on designing hardware helps encourage developers contributing to getting the devices supported in mainline linux and u-boot.
Getting bootloader and kernel code mainlined encourage distributors integrate and maintain support the the devices in their distributions.
Having devices supported in distributions helps users prioritize the devices over other (lesser free) options available to them.
This seems to assume that LetuxOS is not itself a distribution.
No.
For comparison, I work on the Debian distribution and dearly want the Olimex Teres-I DIY laptop well supported there, which requires escaping a similar vicious circle.
It looks as if we need someone who actively wants to get the goodies from LetuxOS into standard Debian. We had such members in our community in the past, but they seem to have lost interest (or more likely time for pure volunteering).
Speaking for myself, I got discouraged when we met in Bavaria and it became clear to me that your avoiding OSHW certification was a deliberate business choice.
Don't get me wrong: I respect your choice, and I have not totally lost interest, but I prioritize OSHW devices higher - e.g. decided to devote time to get the Olimex Teres-I laptop in working shape instead of grabbing the already mostly working PineBook which is lesser free.
I have appreciated the efforts done in other distributions - concretely I work done in Armbian and OpenSuSE was instrumental in getting the device supported in mainline u-boot (likely included with 2019.07 release), which benefits all competing distributions.
I just came to my mind what the most successful embedded Linux PC probably is: RasPi with Raspbian.
It is not even open hardware or software nor supported well by mainline which seems to contradict your suggestions.
RPi isn't in a vicious circle, so no contradiction there.
Here's my recipe for Pi: Create a charitable foundation and partner with a) a university vouching for your noble cause and b) a chip maker needing brand value of a noble cause while keeping control (by offering large discounts only for charity).
My point is that that I firmly believe that to get out of the vicious circle we _first_ need to collaborate and only _then_ compete (if needed at all, but that's a different discussion).
Well, I am waiting for years for collaboration (the first LetuxOS dates back to 2006) but it seems as if other projects decided to compete and start from scratch instead of building on top of LetuxOS :)
Yes, just as Debian had waited for years for your collaboration (first release dates back to 1993) but you decided to compete with LetuxOS instead of joining and improving Debian :-)
- Jonas
Am 21.05.2019 um 15:13 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard jonas@jones.dk:
Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-21 12:51:43)
Hi Jonas,
Am 21.05.2019 um 12:26 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard jonas@jones.dk:
Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-21 12:02:06)
Hi Jonas,
Am 21.05.2019 um 11:00 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard jonas@jones.dk:
First of all, congratulations with the progress!
Thanks!
Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-21 10:22:50)
BTW, here is another trick: You may (not) know that LetuxOS images created by makesd come rooted. This means you can simply ssh as root into the device without password check. This is quite helpful for developers and debugging.
A password-less network-accesible backdoor maybe unknown to the system owner sounds dangerous to me: I recommend documenting that very clearly (at least) everywhere passwords are currently menioned in documentation.
Yes, please feel free to document it in the Wiki.
Is the wiki the only place passwords are mentioned? There are no other places users could be helped get notified about this open access? users
I have no idea about what users do... We need users to see the missing information and add it themselves. So we just must enable them to do it. Which is the Wiki.
Makes sense that users document what they do.
Makes sense that developers document what they do.
You really expect users to understand and document backdoors better than the developers implementing them?!?
No. But I am the developer and in this case you are the user - and you have a better understanding where this should be documented.
Suggestion: Add a notice in /etc/motd
Hm. Do your ever read/see that?
Why on Earth would I suggest it otherwise?
Ok, accepted. My fault. I assumed that because I am not using that that it is rare that others use it.
On the other hand in LetuxOS it is not enabled. And not displayed anywhere.
On a very general view, we have achieved a lot, but still not enough to get the LetuxOS eco-system into a self-sustaining mode. What is lacking?
- users are missing because software is not good enough for daily
use
- hardware is missing because potential users complain about
missing high-quality software
- developers to polish the software are missing, because of missing
(new) hardware
You see the vicious circle? Ideas how to magically break it?
Contributing as certified OSHW your own work on designing hardware helps encourage developers contributing to getting the devices supported in mainline linux and u-boot.
Getting bootloader and kernel code mainlined encourage distributors integrate and maintain support the the devices in their distributions.
Having devices supported in distributions helps users prioritize the devices over other (lesser free) options available to them.
This seems to assume that LetuxOS is not itself a distribution.
No.
For comparison, I work on the Debian distribution and dearly want the Olimex Teres-I DIY laptop well supported there, which requires escaping a similar vicious circle.
It looks as if we need someone who actively wants to get the goodies from LetuxOS into standard Debian. We had such members in our community in the past, but they seem to have lost interest (or more likely time for pure volunteering).
Speaking for myself, I got discouraged when we met in Bavaria and it became clear to me that your avoiding OSHW certification was a deliberate business choice.
No it was not about avoiding it. It was about not seeing any benefit for anyone.
Just more paperwork and discussions. And some requirements that are difficult to fulfill. And nobody covering additional expenses.
My key learning came from a discussion before that meeting where some guys urged me to publish the schematics. I did finally say: ok - here are the EAGLE source files. What happened? NOTHING. Nobody did apparently make use of this information. The device did not become better. Nobody had needed this for writing software - a PDF of the schematics was sufficient.
The only thing was that *I* had more work. And an official certificate is even more work for *me* and not a warranty of more success (see RasPi).
Don't get me wrong: I respect your choice, and I have not totally lost interest, but I prioritize OSHW devices higher - e.g. decided to devote time to get the Olimex Teres-I laptop in working shape instead of grabbing the already mostly working PineBook which is lesser free.
Yes, that is your freedom of choice which I do not question at all.
I have appreciated the efforts done in other distributions - concretely I work done in Armbian and OpenSuSE was instrumental in getting the device supported in mainline u-boot (likely included with 2019.07 release), which benefits all competing distributions.
I just came to my mind what the most successful embedded Linux PC probably is: RasPi with Raspbian.
It is not even open hardware or software nor supported well by mainline which seems to contradict your suggestions.
RPi isn't in a vicious circle, so no contradiction there.
Plausible explanation. It was pushed early enough into self-sustaining mode and stays there.
Here's my recipe for Pi: Create a charitable foundation and partner with a) a university vouching for your noble cause and b) a chip maker needing brand value of a noble cause while keeping control (by offering large discounts only for charity).
Yes, that might work out. Well, our key chip maker back then was TI and they already had the charity "BeagleBoard". And did not need new brand value for a noble cause. Rather they abandoned the OMAP series...
So it was more a matter of having chosen the wrong horse or just bad luck some years ago.
My point is that that I firmly believe that to get out of the vicious circle we _first_ need to collaborate and only _then_ compete (if needed at all, but that's a different discussion).
Well, I am waiting for years for collaboration (the first LetuxOS dates back to 2006) but it seems as if other projects decided to compete and start from scratch instead of building on top of LetuxOS :)
Yes, just as Debian had waited for years for your collaboration (first release dates back to 1993)
Yes :)
Regarding my collaboration: my day only has 24 hours which must be divided by all projects & family and myself. Actively contributing to another project and especially as a volunteer needs to be well though about.
but you decided to compete with LetuxOS instead of joining and improving Debian :-)
Where does LetuxOS compete with Debian? It does not modify or fork any Debian package. It just *adds* a handful of config packages to Debian and builds installable packages for a handful of devices not supported by Debian. Or in the case of QtMoko or Replicant or QuantumSTEP it compiles application software.
Josua even wrote Debian packaging recipies for the Letux Kernel.
So Debian could just integrate the packages to the Repo in theory.
Well, the main reason for *me* not doing all this natively in Debian is that it appears to me to be too difficult to set up a build environment and learn how to build packages with native tools (on my non-Linux UNIX machine). It was easier for me to hack some shell scripts to emit compatible .deb packages and copy to a repository server. And running a Debian in a VM remotely controlled by ssh is also not very smooth.
In other words, the entry barrier to become a contributor to Debian is much higher than just using it as a rock solid basis. And my volunteering budget is already exhausted by contributing to kernel.org so that I simply did not want to do another big task. Because there are ca. 7 billion other people on the world and there should be some who are better in doing that...
So the question is how to make them happy and contribute - without me doing everything :)
BR and thanks, Nikolaus
Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-21 15:48:06)
Am 21.05.2019 um 15:13 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard jonas@jones.dk: Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-21 12:51:43)
Am 21.05.2019 um 12:26 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard jonas@jones.dk: Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-21 12:02:06)
Am 21.05.2019 um 11:00 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard jonas@jones.dk: Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-21 10:22:50) > BTW, here is another trick: You may (not) know that LetuxOS > images created by makesd come rooted. This means you can simply > ssh as root into the device without password check. This is > quite helpful for developers and debugging.
A password-less network-accesible backdoor maybe unknown to the system owner sounds dangerous to me: I recommend documenting that very clearly (at least) everywhere passwords are currently menioned in documentation.
Yes, please feel free to document it in the Wiki.
[...]
You really expect users to understand and document backdoors better than the developers implementing them?!?
No. But I am the developer and in this case you are the user - and you have a better understanding where this should be documented.
As quoted above, my understanding is that best place to document backdoor access is EVERY place frontdoor access is documented and whereever this-device-is-insecure-by-default warnings are suitable.
Suggestion: Add a notice in /etc/motd
Hm. Do your ever read/see that?
Why on Earth would I suggest it otherwise?
Ok, accepted. My fault. I assumed that because I am not using that that it is rare that others use it.
On the other hand in LetuxOS it is not enabled. And not displayed anywhere.
You have openssh/dropbear/tinysshd/lsh configured to not present MOTD when users log in via ssh?
I don't mean to imply that I always carefully read the MOTD message when logging into systems, but recommend it as one of several places for users to _possibly_ notice that whoa, this system has unusually low security!!!
- Jonas
Hi Jonas, one more thought on this with some distance in time.
Am 21.05.2019 um 15:13 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard jonas@jones.dk:
My point is that that I firmly believe that to get out of the vicious circle we _first_ need to collaborate and only _then_ compete (if needed at all, but that's a different discussion).
Well, I am waiting for years for collaboration (the first LetuxOS dates back to 2006) but it seems as if other projects decided to compete and start from scratch instead of building on top of LetuxOS :)
Yes, just as Debian had waited for years for your collaboration (first release dates back to 1993) but you decided to compete with LetuxOS instead of joining and improving Debian :-)
The main contribution of LetuxOS since 2006 is to advocate using Debian on embedded boards. At that time everyone was using Angstrom. We used Debian right from the beginning. And LetuxOS is (still) making Debian more available and better useable on some set of devices by adding a handful packages and compatible kernels. IMHO this *is* collaboration and not competition.
BR, Nikolaus
Quoting H. Nikolaus Schaller (2019-05-22 08:03:27)
Hi Jonas, one more thought on this with some distance in time.
Am 21.05.2019 um 15:13 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard jonas@jones.dk:
My point is that that I firmly believe that to get out of the vicious circle we _first_ need to collaborate and only _then_ compete (if needed at all, but that's a different discussion).
Well, I am waiting for years for collaboration (the first LetuxOS dates back to 2006) but it seems as if other projects decided to compete and start from scratch instead of building on top of LetuxOS :)
Yes, just as Debian had waited for years for your collaboration (first release dates back to 1993) but you decided to compete with LetuxOS instead of joining and improving Debian :-)
The main contribution of LetuxOS since 2006 is to advocate using Debian on embedded boards. At that time everyone was using Angstrom. We used Debian right from the beginning. And LetuxOS is (still) making Debian more available and better useable on some set of devices by adding a handful packages and compatible kernels. IMHO this *is* collaboration and not competition.
You asked how to get out of that vicious circle of not gaining enough users/developers/devices. I recommend *more* collaboration an *less* competition.
Waiting for others to collaborate with you in your playground is *less* collaborative than joining others in their pre-existing playground.
It is all collaborative.
It is all competition.
It is all good. But could be better.
- Jonas
Hi, just a small update
Am 21.05.2019 um 10:22 schrieb H. Nikolaus Schaller hns@goldelico.com:
Hi, there are new LetuxOS kernels:
letux-5.2-rc1
we now have letux-5.2-rc3 ...
letux-5.1.3 letux-5.0.17 letux-4.19.44 letux-4.14.120
... and merged upstream here ...
Please see:
projects.goldelico.com/p/gta04-kernel/
Unfortunately display drivers in letux-5.2-rc1 for almost all devices are broken. So please either help to fix the issues or wait for a later -rc.
... and all panel drivers seem to be fixed now.
It was very different:
GTA04/L2804: the spi-cs-high legacy handler was broken again L3704 & L7004: the panel driver had to be replaced by the generic panel-simple Pyra: it was not the display driver but a bug in the pca953x gpio expander which wasn't programmed any more
There is still a minor issue with the PWM backlight for the combination of BeagleBoard Black + 4.3 inch panel cape. It does not work for 4.19 but for 5.0 and later.
BR and happy tinkering,
same again :) Nikolaus