>> diff --git a/drivers/power/ab8500_fg.c b/drivers/power/ab8500_fg.c
>> index bf02225..ff64dd4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/power/ab8500_fg.c
>> +++ b/drivers/power/ab8500_fg.c
>> @@ -22,15 +22,16 @@
[...]
>>
>> #define MILLI_TO_MICRO 1000
>> #define FG_LSB_IN_MA 1627
>> @@ -212,7 +213,6 @@ struct ab8500_fg {
>> struct ab8500_fg_avg_cap avg_cap;
>> struct ab8500 *parent;
>> struct ab8500_gpadc *gpadc;
>> - struct abx500_fg_platform_data *pdata;
>> struct abx500_bm_data *bat;
>> struct power_supply fg_psy;
>> struct workqueue_struct *fg_wq;
>> @@ -2416,6 +2416,8 @@ static int __devexit ab8500_fg_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> int ret = 0;
>> struct ab8500_fg *di = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>
>> + of_node_put(pdev->dev.of_node);
>
> This is wrong, the probe function doesn't increment the refcount of this
> node, so you don't have to decrement it here.
you hinted in one of your earlier comments as:
"
Also, if I'm not mistaken we have a leak here, because the refcount of
these nodes is never decremented, not even in the driver remove routine.
" while referring bmdevs_of_probe(..), nodes being referred,
np and np_bat_supply
Note:
I found 'refcount of kref' being 1 in case of node obtained from
probe() also through of_parse_phandle(...).
ref: struct device_node { kref kref }
Lee, any comments?
Hi all,
Due to Amazon EC2/EBS issues last night, ci.linaro.org and
android-build.linaro.org have been partially unresponsive.
While everything is supposed to be back already, we are hitting problems
with Amazon EC2 capacity, which jenkins doesn't handle in the most
graceful way.
We apologize for the inconvenience this might be causing, but we'll do
everything we can to monitor and bring the service up to full capacity
as soon as possible.
Cheers,
Danilo
Hello,
I am trying to emulate beagleboard in qemu. I am using linaro 11.08
releases of nano rootfs and hwpack (this release is dated as on 2011/08/23)
and the version of linaro-media-create I am using is 2012.06. After I run
the following command, I do get a image generated but with the following
error. Due to this error after I run the image, I cannot mount the image. I
have pasted everything from the terminal till the end after I get the
error.
*$ sudo linaro-media-create --image_file beagle_sd.img --dev beagle
--binary nano-n-tar-20110823-1.tar.gz --hwpack
hwpack_linaro-omap3_20110823-0_armel_supported.tar.gz*
*proc has been unmounted
Sleeping for 1 second(s) to wait for the partition to settle
Disk beagle_sd.img: cannot get geometry
sfdisk: ERROR: sector 0 does not have an msdos signature
beagle_sd.img: unrecognized partition table type
No partitions found
Warning: beagle_sd.img is not a block device
Disk beagle_sd.img: cannot get geometry
sfdisk: ERROR: sector 0 does not have an msdos signature
beagle_sd.img: unrecognized partition table type
No partitions found
Warning: partition 1 does not end at a cylinder boundary
BLKRRPART: Inappropriate ioctl for device
If you created or changed a DOS partition, /dev/foo7, say, then use dd(1)
to zero the first 512 bytes: dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/foo7 bs=512 count=1
(See fdisk(8).)
Sleeping for 1 second(s) to wait for the partition to settle
Disk beagle_sd.img: cannot get geometry
start: (c,h,s) expected (0,1,1) found (0,1,32)
end: (c,h,s) expected (6,160,25) found (25,127,31)
start: (c,h,s) expected (6,160,27) found (26,0,1)
end: (c,h,s) expected (391,159,24) found (1023,127,32)
partition ends on cylinder 1023, beyond the end of the disk
Formating boot partition
mkfs.vfat 3.0.12 (29 Oct 2011)
Loop device does not match a floppy size, using default hd params
Formating root partition
mke2fs 1.42 (29-Nov-2011)
Filesystem label=rootfs
OS type: Linux
Block size=4096 (log=2)
Fragment size=4096 (log=2)
Stride=0 blocks, Stripe width=0 blocks
193536 inodes, 773120 blocks
38656 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user
First data block=0
Maximum filesystem blocks=792723456
24 block groups
32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group
8064 inodes per group
Superblock backups stored on blocks:
32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912
Allocating group tables: done
Writing inode tables: done
Creating journal (16384 blocks): done
Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done
`/tmp/tmpKKLnZe/binary/usr/lib/u-boot/omap3_beagle/u-boot.bin' ->
`/tmp/tmpKKLnZe/boot-disc/u-boot.bin'
`/tmp/tmpKKLnZe/binary/usr/lib/x-loader/omap3530beagle/MLO' ->
`/tmp/tmpKKLnZe/boot-disc/MLO'
Image Name: Linux
Created: Fri Oct 19 17:03:27 2012
Image Type: ARM Linux Kernel Image (uncompressed)
Data Size: 3836224 Bytes = 3746.31 kB = 3.66 MB
Load Address: 80008000
Entry Point: 80008000
Image Name: initramfs
Created: Fri Oct 19 17:03:27 2012
Image Type: ARM Linux RAMDisk Image (uncompressed)
Data Size: 1853452 Bytes = 1810.01 kB = 1.77 MB
Load Address: 00000000
Entry Point: 00000000
Image Name: boot script
Created: Fri Oct 19 17:03:27 2012
Image Type: ARM Linux Script (uncompressed)
Data Size: 444 Bytes = 0.43 kB = 0.00 MB
Load Address: 00000000
Entry Point: 00000000
Contents:
Image 0: 436 Bytes = 0.43 kB = 0.00 MB
`/tmp/tmpKKLnZe/boot-disc/boot.scr' -> `/tmp/tmpKKLnZe/boot-disc/boot.ini'
Populating rootfs partition
Be patient, this may take a few minutes
Creating /etc/flash-kernel.conf
Updating /etc/network/interfaces
Done creating Linaro image on beagle_sd.img
pshah9@ubuntu:~/Downloads/image$ *
I know this bug has been reported and the patch has been released by
Guilherme (bug # 701678 and here is the link to the patch file
https://launchpadlibrarian.net/62892999/udisks.diff ). The
linaro-image-tools version that the patch was released was for 0.4.2 but
this error still persist in 2012.06. And, I also tried if I can apply this
patch on my linaro-media-tool version, but I keep on getting error as the
source code has changed and so patch cant be applied.
And, there was another bug reported for linaro-image-tools that occurs with
the same command. This is not a error but it is warning about /bin/df (bug
# 651918):
*$ sudo linaro-media-create --image_file beagle_sd.img --dev beagle
--binary nano-n-tar-20110823-1.tar.gz --hwpack
hwpack_linaro-omap3_20110823-0_armel_supported.tar.gz
**/bin/df: Warning: cannot read table of mounted file systems: No such file
or directory*
*
*I get this warning little bit before the above error. I couldn't find any
solution for this problem as this bug remains unassigned on
launchpad.netwebsite.
So, can you please tell me how can I download the linaro-media-tool version
that was released after 0.4.2 and contains the above patch or if possible a
new patch for 2012.06? I am writing this email directly to this list as I
am using it for my thesis and wanted to get it solved as fast as possible.
Tejas
Hi All,
Greeting from QA Team.
INFO:
The QA Services team can offer test planning and sign-off services to
Working Groups for their major road-map items. We are planning to kick off
road-map piloting for Linaro Engineering efforts at Connect 2012. Card
http://cards.linaro.org/browse/CARD-140 briefs about QA's road-map sign
off piloting.
STATUS:
We have been providing QA services to projects like big.LITTLE System,
big.LITTLE MP and general Android and Ubuntu Daily, Weekly and Monthly
release testing. We have well defined test plans, test execution cycles and
test plan sign-off for above Projects.
ACTION:
We would like to have a pre-discussion about your (Working Group)
requirement and expectation from QA team regarding creating test suite,
planning, development, integration with Ubuntu, Android and LAVA. Please
also let us know the cards/projects which are in a need of QA services. we
are ready to help you.
MEET:
we would also like you to invite for QA meeting planned at LCE12 for
further discussion
http://summit.linaro.org/lce12/meeting/21226/roadmap-card-qa-and-sign-off/
Regards,
QA Services
Linaro Platform
http://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/QA
Calendar Week 42: Here is test result summary for Linaro ubuntu image on
following boards:
1) ARM Versatile Express A9;
2) Samsung Origen;
3) TI Panda Board 4430;
4) TI Panda Board 4460.
Synopsis: No change on feature status for vexpress A9, Samsung Origen and
TI Panda 4460 boards. For Samsung Origen board, several important features
are missing for a long time, such like WiFi, Bluetooth, Device Tree and
HDMI display. Hopefully someone will investigate it in future. For TI Panda
4430, Bluetooth headset works.
1. vexpress A9 + ubuntu (Column AE):
https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AroPySpr4FnEdFNmV…
Features' status is exactly same as previous week. Video playback and
Device Tree are missing for a long time, others are OK. Since this is a low
performance board, some functions work not that smoothly.
2. Origen + ubuntu (Column Z):
https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AroPySpr4FnEdEowN…
Features' status is exactly same as previous week. Unity 3D, WiFi,
Bluetooth, HDMI Display and Video playback are still unavailable. Power
Management test would hang the system.
3. Panda 4430 + ubuntu (Column AB):
https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AroPySpr4FnEdEwwZ…
Bluetooth headset starts to work, however, Bluetooth still let system
crashes during the pairing process with a laptop computer, and the file
transfer is unavailable either. Power Management now works well, all tests
passed.
4. Panda 4460 + ubuntu (Column AA):
https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AroPySpr4FnEdEwwZ…
Features' status is exactly same as previous week. The dead lock error
still exists in the boot serial log although it currently doesn't affect
the system running. File transfer over Bluetooth is unavailable, but the
pairing process can be done successfully and Bluetooth headset works well
too.
For the previous week (Calendar week 41) summary, please refer to
attachment.
Thank you.
Best Regards
Botao Sun
Hi Morten,
Thank you very much for your review.
>> 1.Consider a scenario,where there are two 10% tasks running on a cpu.The
>> present code will consider the load on this queue to be 2048,while
>> using PJT's metric the load is calculated to be <1000,rarely exceeding this
>> limit.Although the tasks are not contributing much to the cpu load,they are
>> decided to be moved by the scheduler.
>
> I guess that you assume, for now, that all tasks have default (nice 0)
> priority? Both the old load and the PJT metric (tracked load) depends on
> priority.
Thats right.I have assumed default priority of the tasks.
>
>>
>> But one could argue that 'not moving one of these tasks could throttle
>> them.If there was an idle cpu,perhaps we could have moved them'.While the
>> power save mode would have been fine with not moving the task,the
>> performance mode would prefer not to throttle the tasks.We could strive
>> to strike a balance by making this decision tunable with certain parameters.
>> This patchset includes such tunables.This issue is addressed in Patch[1/2].
>>
>
> One could also argue that long as there are spare cpu cycles in each
> schedule period then all tasks have received the cpu time they needed.
> So from that point of view performance isn't affected by not balancing
> the tasks as long as the cpu is not fully utilized. If we look at the
> problem from a latency point of view then packing tasks on a single cpu
> will increase latency but the increase will be bounded by the schedule
> period.
>
Assume that at the end of one scheduling period,there are a few spare
cycles on the cpu.this is fine from both the performance and latency
point of view at *this* point.nobody is waiting for the cpu.
The issue arises if it is detected that these spare cycles are due to
*sleeping tasks* and not due to no tasks.
At this point a decision needs to be made as to: if a scenario arises
where all these tasks wake up at the same time in the future,and wait on
the cpu,then are we ok with them waiting.Both performance and latency
views could be against this,as this also means less throughput.But
performance view could go slightly easy on this to argue,that its ok if
2-3 tasks wait,if more,then there is a need to move them.
>> This patchset therefore has two primary aims.
>> Patch[1/2]: This patch aims at detecting short running tasks and
>> prevent their movement.In update_sg_lb_stats,dismiss a sched group
>> as a candidate for load balancing,if load calculated by PJT's metric
>> says that the average load on the sched_group <= 1024+(.15*1024).
>> This is a tunable,which can be varied after sufficient experiments.
>
> Your current threshold implies that there must be at least two (nice 0)
> tasks running breach the threshold and they need to be quite busy. This
> makes sense to me. When you have more tasks they are more likely to be
> waiting on the runqueue even if it is only 10% tasks. Let's say you have
> five 10% tasks and they all become runnable at the same instant. In that
> case some of the tasks would have a tracked load which is much higher
> than if we only had two 10% tasks running. So if I'm not mistaken, it
> would be possible to breach the threshold even though the overall cpu
> utilization is only 50% and it would have been safe not to load-balance
> that cpu.
>
> Do you think it would make sense to let the threshold depend on the
> number of task on the cpu somehow?
You are right,Morten.In fact I have included this viewpoint in both my
first and second patch enclosed by this. So lets take up the above
scenario.if there are 5 10% tasks running,they will surely cross the
threshold,but the cpu might have spare cycles at the end of a scheduling
period.Now that is your concern.
Again we have two different viewpoints.This threshold is like a tuning
knob.we could increase it if we feel that this threshold gets reached
very quickly with as few tasks as 5, although the cpu utilization is
poor.we prefer not to wake up another cpu unless the present cpu is
aptly loaded.we could call this the power saving view.
Else we could say that,we are not intending to affect the throughput of
tasks,so we prefer the knob be at this value,so that we qualify such a
load as a candidate for load balancing.we could call this the
performance view.
>
> Alternative, the decision could be based on the cpu idle time over the
> last schedule period. A cpu with no or very few spare cycles in the last
> schedule period would be a good candidate for load-balancing. Latency
> would be affected as mentioned earlier.
>
Exactly.idle_time == spare_cpu_cycles == less cpu_utilization.I hope i
am not wrong in drawing this equivalence.if thats the case then the same
explanation as above holds good here too.
>
> Morten
Thank you
Regards
Preeti
