linaro-dev September 2010

linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org

78 participants
101 discussions

putting together a training based on linaro

by Robert Berger

Hi, I'm trying to put together an "introduction to Linux" training based on Linaro and BeagleBoard/BeagleBoard-xM(as it becomes available) and want to launch it in Feb/March 2011. The hardware choice is due to the low price and because it's cool. The distro choice it because I think that's the way to go for contemporary ARM processors. Your opinions might be biased, but what do you think about my choices? Any suggestions? Is linaro stable enough for it? I'm playing around with https://wiki.linaro.org/Source/ImageInstallation and daily snapshots. Which git trees should be used to build from source http://git.linaro.org/gitweb? What's the preferred way to build/install additional packages? Are there trees which utilize the multimedia features a bit more than the headless stuff? (audio,video,...) Regards, Robert -- Robert Berger Embedded Software Specialist Reliable Embedded Systems Consulting Training Engineering Tel.: (+30) 697 593 3428 Fax.:(+30) 210 684 7881 URL: http://www.reliableembeddedsystems.com ..."To be or not to be... that is the question." - The answer is 0xff since: 0x2b | ~0x2b = 0xff My public pgp key is available at: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x90320BF1

14 years, 3 months

2010-09-13 Toolchain WG status

by Michael Hope

Here's what's been going on in the Toolchain WG: * Released Linaro GCC 4.5, 4.4, and a first cut of cortex-strings * All of the CSL patches have now been integrated and released * Started the investigation work into Thumb-2 code size in GCC * Work continues on imporving the correctness of GDB * Valgrind is being improved by upstream. We're looking at doing an alpha package soon and deciding whether to do a release past that. * CSL now have a OpenOCD person. I'm defining what we want them to do. Problems: * It's time to start paying off some of the software debt by getting things like http://ex.seabright.co.nz/helpers/ done properly by other groups Minutes from the recent meetings are here: https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2010-09-13 https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2010-09-08 https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2010-09-10 -- Michael

14 years, 3 months

Notes from Landing Teams call 2010/09/15

by Matt Waddel

Hi Notes from today's Landing Teams call. Also at: https://wiki.linaro.org/LandingTeams/Meetings/2010-09-15 --Matt === Attendees === * Matt Waddel * Torez Smith === Agenda === * Action items from last meeting. * Achievements / progress reports * OMAP3 * Versatile Express * Blocking issues === Action Items === * Loïc to check what to do with broken boards - Beagle XM (A1) === Action Items from Previous Meeting === * === Minutes === * Action items from last meeting. * Achievements / progress reports * OMAP3 * Bug: #636895 & #637459 - Daily builds stopped booting * MLO out of sync with u-boot * current build not pulling in u-boot or MLO correctly - Bug: #639852 * linaro-media-create fails silently - Bug: 639862 * Libertas bug - postponed pending urgent bug resolutions listed above * Versatile Express * flash-kernel patch clean-ups - debian and ubuntu * port frame buffer driver from ARM patch to current kernel * will fix Bug: #633417 * close bugs as fixes are validated * Blocking issues * none === Status Reports === * Matt * this week * push u-boot (next) changes before merge window opens * worked on Bug: #628614 - initrd not loading * worked on Bug: #629975 - memory bug - not using entire 1G * mmcblk0 Bug: #632798 - error messages on startup * mouse Bug: #633253 - mouse not working * framebuffer Bug: #633417 - frame buffer corruption * flash-kernel - working * tested zImages from Hudson build machine * Wiki updates * next week * frame buffer patch intgration - Bug: #633417 * flash-kernel patch review additions * try Lorenzo's vexpress arm device-tree * try oprofile on vexpress * Start mmc u-boot support

14 years, 3 months

[PATCH] arm: fix Kconfig system choice list

by Daniel Lezcano

The item name is too long and bugs the choice list. The items in the list are not displayed correctly. This patch moves the list of supported system in the help instead of the bool choice. Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano(a)free.fr> --- arch/arm/Kconfig | 10 ++++++---- 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig index 47a9084..5a827b1 100644 --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig @@ -631,15 +631,17 @@ config ARCH_SA1100 Support for StrongARM 11x0 based boards. config ARCH_S3C2410 - bool "Samsung S3C2410, S3C2412, S3C2413, S3C2416, S3C2440, S3C2442, S3C2443, S3C2450" + bool "Samsung S3C24xx" select GENERIC_GPIO select ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ select HAVE_CLK select ARCH_USES_GETTIMEOFFSET help - Samsung S3C2410X CPU based systems, such as the Simtec Electronics - BAST (<http://www.simtec.co.uk/products/EB110ITX/>), the IPAQ 1940 or - the Samsung SMDK2410 development board (and derivatives). + Samsung S3C2410X CPU based systems (S3C2410, S3C2412, S3C2413, + S3C2416, S3C2440, S3C2442, S3C2443, S3C2450), such as the Simtec + Electronics BAST (<http://www.simtec.co.uk/products/EB110ITX/>), + the IPAQ 1940 or the Samsung SMDK2410 development board (and + derivatives). Note, the S3C2416 and the S3C2450 are so close that they even share the same SoC ID code. This means that there is no seperate machine -- 1.7.0.4

14 years, 3 months

[PM] 15/09/10 - Minutes for the Power Management WG weekly call

by Amit Arora

The minutes of the weekly call can be found at: https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/PowerManagement/Meetings/2010-09-15 Attendees: Linaro: Amit Kucheria, Amit Arora, Yong Shen ARM: Srinivas Kalaga Thanks! Regards, Amit Arora

14 years, 3 months

powertop patches

by yong.shen＠linaro.org

This is for powertop to run better on kernel. the first patch is back port from 8d4b9d1bf on 2.6.36. They have been tested on freescale's babage 3.0 board. Yong

14 years, 3 months

Hardware pack questions

by James Westby

Hi all, Scott asked me to take a look at the hwpack spec: https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/UserPlatforms/Specs/10.11/HardwarePacks I took the liberty of editing it somewhat to make the definition of a hardware pack clearer, and remove some contradiction in the implementation suggestions. I have some questions about the goals of the spec though: 1. Do we support installing more than one hardware pack on an image? 2. What is the purpose of the hwpack.deb that is mentioned in places? 3. Do we want to be able to pull in new versions of a hwpack on request, or should it just be a case of updating the image, with a hwpack-install call if you want to install a newer version that pulls in new packages? 4. Do we want to support cross-installation in any way? 5. What are the use cases for tags? I can only see X/no X in the spec. 6. What are the use cases for support information? There is also one larger question, which is that I disagree that we shouldn't provide anything that will go in a hardware pack in the linaro images. I think that having the images be useful by themselves has lots of benefits. - Being able to quickly spin up an image in QEMU makes for easier testing. - Requiring a hardware pack for every operation will make some things more tedious. - If everything in a hardware pack becomes more consolidated then hardware packs probably become less useful. Thanks, James

14 years, 3 months

Re: Hardware pack questions

by James Westby

[ resending with the correct address ] On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:03:32 -0400, James Westby <james.westby(a)canonical.com> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:26:46 -0400, James Westby <james.westby(a)linaro.org> wrote: > > There is also one larger question, which is that I disagree that we > > shouldn't provide anything that will go in a hardware pack in the linaro > > images. I think that having the images be useful by themselves has lots > > of benefits. > > > > - Being able to quickly spin up an image in QEMU makes for easier > > testing. > > - Requiring a hardware pack for every operation will make some things > > more tedious. > > - If everything in a hardware pack becomes more consolidated then > > hardware packs probably become less useful. > - Not having a flag day where suddenly our images aren't installable > and hwpack-install has to work well, and before that date we can't > test hwpack-install on the images we produce. > > Having not had anyone convince me that stripping our images is the right > thing to do I have carried on attempting to write the spec without > requiring this. There will be a few issues, such as ensuring that the > kernel we want is the one that boots, but we have that problem on hwpack > upgrades anyway, so it doesn't go away by stripping the images. > > I have > > https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/UserPlatforms/Specs/10.11/HardwarePacks > > to a state where I am happy to start implementation now. Feedback on the > spec is still welcome, and things will still be subject to change. In > particular there are still a number of TODOs in the spec where I don't > know how to proceed, but I believe that none of those block us starting > implementation of other parts. > > Is the current status quo to create specs under the "linaro" project on > Launchpad? I'll create a spec for this so that we can track work items > for it. > > Thanks, > > James >

14 years, 3 months

Notes & Actions: Linaro graphics/multimedia - Sep 13, 2010

by Alexandros Frantzis

Hi, notes and actions from our Monday graphics and multimedia cross-vendor call are available on the wiki: + https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/UserPlatforms/2010-09-13 Details about when and where of this meeting can be found here: + https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Middleware/Graphics#Weekly%20Public%2… Thanks, -- - Alexandros

14 years, 3 months

Upcoming release coordination

by Michael Hope

Hi there. We all have the November release coming up. Even though the different groups have different release cycles, it would be nice to do a coordinated release in November that shows off the work we've all been doing. As part of that I want to make sure the toolchain outputs play well together with the outputs from other groups. At least we need a QEMU (toolchain), kernel, and test head (user platforms) that work well together. A GDB and kernel combination with interrupted syscall and hardware watchpoint support would be good as well. Benchmark numbers up in the dashboard too. Past that it would be nice to have a common 'Linaro' PPA where you can get the latest of everything, including cross compilers, QEMU, and similar on the host side, and also compilers, libraries, power management tools, and similar on the device side. I know we have the overlay PPA but it focuses on stability and is for the test head only. Even past that it would be nice to have easy to consume examples as well such as: * A demo showing a cross compiled OpenGL app, run on a device due to a good kernel, showing better numbers due to driver and compiler improvements, and profiled using valgrind and oprofile * A package with startup scripts, QEMU, kernel, and test head all ready to run * The same but with the latest versions of all packages from all groups already installed * The same but installed as part of a Ubuntu Maverick VMWare image to give a very low barrier to entry, and to let Windows users try things out I normally overdo these things so feel free to bring me back down to earth. I'm going to at least talk with Loic and Alexander about the QEMU/Kernel/Test head combo. -- Michael

14 years, 3 months

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-dev September 2010