The linux-linaro-3.1 branch is open
andy.green at linaro.org
Tue Oct 11 08:08:50 UTC 2011
On 10/11/2011 02:43 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 11:49 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
>> On 10/11/2011 11:43 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>>> Cool. In the absence of a official Android 3.1 common tree, I sat down
>>> today and actually did the same with the TI omapzoom p-common tree (just
>>> adding the linaro+android defconfigs and base origen support).
>> Is there any reason not to base off my version of it? There's no
>> guarantee TI's tree will go on for any longer than they have a use for
>> it whereas I am planning to do this for a whole cycle.
> No specific reason not to, just that from reading your announcement from
> last week, I thought the p-android-3.1 branch was just the rebased
> android common tree, and it wasn't clear if the tilt tree had other
> things in it or not.
What Jassi did was take the TI tree and compare it against the
common-3.0 we last had. He found some missing patches about gadget IIRC
and brought them over additionally.
linaro-androidization-tracking doesn't have anything else on it at all
except vanilla + stuff from TI and common-3.0 filling in the gaps.
>>> There were a few usb related mis-merges in that tree that wouldn't
>>> compile, so I fixed up. I'm guessing you've already hit and fixed them
>>> as well, but if not, you can just grab it, its here:
I think what I'll do is study the diff between the two trees with an aim
to reducing that to nothing hopefully by moving things around slightly
on my side.
It won't help anyone to have different versions of "common-3.1" floating
about, especially if you think about after 3.1 release your new one will
branch off and become release-based and mine will continue into the
mysteries of -rc0, if we get Android bugs coming on one but not the
other it won't help if there's some lingering question about how they
may have differed to start with.
>> While we're talking, I noticed cpufreq topic on the re-ordered tree
>> looks like it's a selfcontained little history for a new governor called
>> 'interactive'. Do you know anything about the history of efforts to get
>> this upstream?
> So its never been submitted that I'm aware of. I've chatted with some
> non-android google folks who do more upstream cpufreq work, and they
> weren't really aware of it.
> It was on my list for the trivial-tree earlier, but I never got to it (I
> still need to get the smaller cgroup patches sent out). If you think its
It sounds like I should have put cgroup on its own topic as well.
> more interesting, I can bump its priority and try to get it out for
> discussion. I have neglected the trivial tree work this cycle, so it
> would probably be good to get another item or two our for discussion.
Amit wrote more about cpufreq so I replied there.
Thinking about what's in the topics it seems there are quite a few
opportunities for patch folding / consolidation / optimization, ignoring
upstreaming. A few times in one topic a patch is introduced and then
reverted, or the patch is introduced and a little later there is a
cleanup patch. It should be at least arguable to fold these, trying to
keep track of who did what in the commit log. (Good example is ion
topic, there are 12 "history" patches that could be folded into the
It complicates the question if this tree 'has' xyz patch, but it
simplifies the patchset. I think 467 patches was enough for this it
might be good if it shrank considerably rather than keep on acquiring
its own history.
Andy Green | TI Landing Team Leader
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs | Follow Linaro
http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://linaro.org/linaro-blog
More information about the linaro-kernel