Update lvgl 8.3.11

[faxe1008]

Update LVGL module to version 8.3.11. Full release notes here:
CHANGELOG.md.

Substantial fixes:

• fix(disp): fix memory leak lv_scr_load_anim with auto_del and time=0 1caafc5
• fix(btnmatrix): fix array out of bounds addressing with groups and no buttons edd5ad2
• fix(chart): fix lv_chart_get_point_pos_by_id f9ffcc9
• fix(chart): fix division by zero if there are no ticks 67b3011

[faxe1008]

This commit introduced a regression in regards to background opacity behaviour when loading screens with FADE_ANIM for me:

commit ebd3537c2c92de1532a4b4465f4f08f8f5ff556b
Author: _VIFEXTech <vifextech@foxmail.com>
Date:   Mon Aug 14 13:57:19 2023 +0800

    feat(style): backport opa_layered

[faxe1008]

Yesterday v8.3.11 was released. I added the respective new commits to this PR. So far I could not spot any regressions.

[pdgendt]

Do we still need a zephyr branch to merge to, or could we simply track upstream releases?

[fabiobaltieri]

Do we still need a zephyr branch to merge to, or could we simply track upstream releases?

Well we need a branch to merge to, are you proposing to ditch the repo entirely? Pretty sure we don't what that even if it follows upstream 1:1, it's useful to have anyway in case we want to diverge temporarily and converge back down the line.

[pdgendt]

Well we need a branch to merge to, are you proposing to ditch the repo entirely? Pretty sure we don't what that even if it follows upstream 1:1, it's useful to have anyway in case we want to diverge temporarily and converge back down the line.

Not ditching, simply follow upstream 1:1, like we do for openthread.

[fabiobaltieri]

Not ditching, simply follow upstream 1:1, like we do for openthread.

Ok so you mean: drop the zephyr branch, instead use a main branch that tracks upstream? That'd be cool... it could still be called zephyr :-)

[pdgendt]

Ok so you mean: drop the zephyr branch, instead use a main branch that tracks upstream? That'd be cool... it could still be called zephyr :-)

Right, but now we have to keep adding merge commits simply for the zephyr folder?

[fabiobaltieri]

Oh I see, yeah it'd make sense to use main, or maybe just tag it so git does not drop the refs and then force push it. Probably not worth it.

[faxe1008]

@pdgendt @fabiobaltieri Sure it would be doable to set up a branch which just tracks upstream. The differences between upstream and our fork mostly comes down to Kconfig changes. Btw. what I also found is that upstream LVGL also has zephyr module.yaml already 🙃 https://github.com/lvgl/lvgl/blob/master/env_support/zephyr/module.yml

Maybe we can sync our module file to upstream and have it be part of v9.0, so that we can eventually ditch the zephyr folder?

[fabiobaltieri]

Maybe we can sync our module file to upstream and have it be part of v9.0, so that we can eventually ditch the zephyr folder?

Ideal.

[pdgendt]

The module file is probably outdated if nobody cares to submit PRs. Maybe we can upstream already for v8?

[faxe1008]

@fabiobaltieri @pdgendt

The module file is probably outdated if nobody cares to submit PRs. Maybe we can upstream already for v8?

The project is currently finalizing v9 - I assume that there will not be another v8 release in the near future. Also one issue is that the module.yaml lives in a env_support/zephyr folder which is not supported by west, at least from I can tell.

[faxe1008]

Ping @fabiobaltieri @pdgendt do you maybe have an idea if its possible that the modules module.yml lives inside the env_support folder and not within root of the repo?

[fabiobaltieri]

Ping @fabiobaltieri @pdgendt do you maybe have an idea if its possible that the modules module.yml lives inside the env_support folder and not within root of the repo?

It looks like the location is hardcoded https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/blob/main/scripts/zephyr_module.py#L179-L180 so with the current code base that is not possible, that said, it may be reasonable to expand the search path, maybe look for a module.yml file in any directory named zephyr in the module or something like that. The problem is that then you could mess things up with nested repositories or other weird corner cases so it needs some thinking. Are you thinking about trying to go 100% in sync with upstream?

[faxe1008]

@fabiobaltieri Thanks for your confirmation. 100% is not feasable since there are Kconfig defaults that we have set differently. I am content to have the merging strat etc. as is. I think that @pdgendt raised the question of tracking 1:1 originally.
As I see it's not really possible to track upstream directly as we already diverged slightly and from what I see other modules also still perform merges into a dedicated zephyr branch.

Anyways if there is feasable solution I'd love to hear it. This should not be a blocker for this update imo.

[fabiobaltieri]

Anyways if there is feasable solution I'd love to hear it. This should not be a blocker for this update imo.

If that's the only delta from upstream I think it may make sense to try and push to make the module file detection a bit smarter, but if we are going to have other patches on top of upstream anyway it's probably not worth the hassle IMO.

[fabiobaltieri]

@faxe1008 is this good to go? let's go!