Greetings,
Enclosed you'll find a link to the agenda, notes and actions from the
Linaro User Platforms Weekly Status meeting dated 9/01 held in
#linaro-meeting at 13:00 UTC.
https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/UserPlatforms/WeeklyStatus/2010-09-01
Regards,
Tom (tgall_foo)
User Platforms Team
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> If you're still accepting fixes for the 2.6.35 stable Linaro Kernel
> then I have some small profiling updates for you:
Thanks. Merged and pushed out.
Nicolas
The minutes of the weekly call can be found at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/PowerManagement/Meetings/2010-08-25
The minutes and actions are copied below.
Regards,
Amit
Attendees:
Linaro: Amit Kucheria, Amit Arora, Yong Shen
ARM: Robin Randhawa, Bobby Batacharia, Srinivas Kalaga
== Action Items from this Meeting ==
* ACTION: Yong to work with John Rigby and Ubuntu kernel team to make sure the Linaro kernel contains powertop kernel patches
* ACTION: Vishwa to verify powertop on 2.6.35
* ACTION: Vishwa to check with cpuidle/cpufreq experts in TI for verifying cpufreq behavior on multi-core OMAP
* ACTION: Amit A to get the powertop patch integrated into Linaro/Ubuntu packages
* ACTION: Yong to test common clk API patches on imx5 and help get it booting on babbage 3.0
== Action Items from Previous Meeting ==
* ACTIVE (Immediate):
* ACTION: Amit A to test on pm enabled OMAP3 board: DONE on 2.6.32 on zoom3 board
* New ACTION: Vishwa to verify on 2.6.35
* ACTION: Amit A to document details on power supply class (battery info) to PowerTOP internal wiki page: DONE
* ACTION: Yong to look into getting powertop kernel patches applied to Linaro kernel tree: Not DONE
* New ACTION: Yong to work with John Rigby and make sure the Linaro kernel contains it
* ACTION: Robin to send links to patches sent to linux-pm: DONE
* http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg01740.html
* It was a pointer to a discussion on having different governors on different cores
* ACTION: Amit K to spend some time on usecase to reproduce ondemand governor problems: POSTPONED
* ACTION: Yong to look at common clock FW, find out if debug info being exported (usage count, clk rate, dependencies): DONE
* DORMANT :
* ACTION: ARM to share internal instrumentation flow (BAB: we might also align with Linaro on workload discussions)
* Might take couple of months
* ACTION: Amit K to talk to jeremy about power domain framework: DONE
* Jeremy needs help, will revisit in a few weeks
* ACTION: Srinivas to provide details of where he believes userspace - kernel interaction is required. (low prio)
* ACTION: Bobby to check on multi-core boards availability (request open)
* ACTION: ARM to discuss giving out internal Eclipse based tool (similar to powertop) (no ETA as of now)
* ACTION: Amit Kucheria and Vishwa to get inputs from community on the issues related to CPUIDLE governor: POSTPONED until instrumentation work
== Minutes ==
* Discussion on http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg01740.html
* For ARM, both cores run at same frequency (CMP)
* Does it make sense for them to run different governors on each core?
* The consensus currently is NO
* TI uses ondemand governor + policy manager
* One core is kept OFF, all processing happens on the other one.
* If load on one core goes above a threshold, they turn ON other core
* Both cores run at same Operating Point once ON
* Debug info in common clk API being discussed upstream by Jeremy
* There is currently no debug info
* clock name is not part of the common struct clk to keep size down
* Need to engage with Jeremy
* Yong will test the patches from Jeremy on imx5 and report back
* Powerdebug: should we visualise the clock and power dependencies using information from /sys or debugfs?
* No immediate horror expressed at the idea
* Freescale and TI already do it to a certain extent by dumping the clock tree and rates into a table
* The entire tree is too complex to depict
* We could represent it in parts e.g. start at a peripheral and plot it's clock and power dependencies all the way up
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria(a)linaro.org> wrote:
> I copied the 2 patches to http://people.canonical.com/~amitk/imx5
>
OK, as far as I can make out the patch does the right thing.
On Babbage 2.0 and the Pegatron lange5.1/nettop platforms, your check
is triggered, and at least on Babbage 2.0 /proc/cpuinfo and
/proc/self/auxv reflect the absence of NEON correctly. (I couldn't
boot to an fs on the Pegatron platform --- in any case I had to bodge
the machine ID passed by the bootloader to persuage the kernel to
boot).
On Babbage 3.0, NEON is reported as present in /proc/cpuinfo and
/proc/self/auxv.
See the attached logs.
Cheers
---Dave
Cc -dev
On 06:15 Mon 06 Sep , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've like to open the discussion about barebox
>
> What is Barebox?
>
> Barebox is a fork of U-Boot which was named before the elce 2009
> U-Boot-V2 with the target to have a modern internal Implememtation
> derived from the Linux kernel and user friendly interface
>
> The current design of barebox is very near from the kernel as example
> on AT91 I've update the current API to be as near as possible as the
> one in the kernel so it's now really easy to port a new board and on
> contrary of U-Boot we can have the multy instance of the drivers.
>
> I'm start to push the SH with the same idea
>
> As example have the prompt on all uart at the same time or be able to use
> them independently.
>
> We also support FastBoot, Framebuffer, USB ohci & Ehci, network, nor,
> nandflash, dfu, usb ethernet (very usefull for soc without net
> device), Menu Framework, etc...
>
> inprogress mmc, spi flash
>
> DFU for Device Firmware Upgrade is very use full to update device from
> usb device from a PC so you will have an generic updater from the
> bootloader
>
> The Menu Framework will help you to create friendly interface to manage
> the booloader via key specially on device without keyboard as cellphone,
> STB etc...
>
> We have also a true shell support with scripting so it's very easy to
> create complex command via sheel script and also complex boot sequence
>
> We have modules support as the kernel which allow to load code based
> on the need and speed up the boot but also allow to update the
> bootloader functionnality in the feature
>
> etc...
>
> Best Regards,
> J.
>
> _______________________________________________
> boot-architecture mailing list
> boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org
> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
The toolchain isn't built with -mcallee-super-interworking enabled.
Could we get that turned on? It is needed to make calls to thumb code
in ROM.
arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -g -DDEBUG -Os -fno-strict-aliasing
-fno-common -ffixed-r8 -ffunction-sections -msoft-float -Wcast-align
-Wall -D__KERNEL__ -DTEXT_BASE= -fno-builtin -ffreestanding -isystem
/usr/lib/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabi/4.5.1/include -pipe -march=armv4t
-mlong-calls -mtune=arm7tdmi-s -DCONFIG_ARM -D__ARM__
-mthumb-interwork -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wcast-align -Wextra
-Werror -Iobj_redbee-econotag_board -I../board -DBOARD=redbee-econotag
-I../lib/include -I../src -I. -mthumb -mcallee-super-interworking -MMD
-c -o obj_redbee-econotag_board/sleep.o sleep.c
sleep.c:1:0: error: AAPCS does not support -mcallee-super-interworking
--
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl(a)gmail.com
Hi,
AFAIU pm branch on linux-omap tree contains required patches, but they
are not yet ready for inclusion in upstream kernel.
How is linaro planning to provide pm support for TI omap[34] chips?
Cheers,
Ameya.