(Go and get yourself a coffee) :)
The idea of this new group has gained enough traction such that we have
decided to run multiple sessions at Connect. Before we can start to plan
the sessions however, we need to gain a better idea of interested
parties. So, who and in what capacity do people wish to participate?
What is the SoC Technology Group (STG)?
Broadly speaking it's a splinter/pseudo group of technical engineers
from each applicable Working Group. Although it could easily contain
members from Platform, Infrastructure and/or Landing Teams. The primary
role of the STG would be to enable feature sets being produced by the
Working Groups on each of our supported boards. This team will focus
heavily on the upstream kernel.
Discussion sessions at Connect
Interested parties should be encouraged to attend these sessions. It is
here that we shall knock some kind of proposal into shape. There are
currently lots of unknowns and loose ends which we need to tie up. Some
of the important items shall be mentioned in this email and can be
discussed accordingly, others will undoubtedly crop up along the way.
A clearly defined road map will need to be defined: 1. Detailing whether
we intend to (and are capable of) parallelising development, so that
each board is being worked on concurrently. Our members would be less
than pleased if we were to prioritise our platforms and theirs were
found at the bottom of the list. There are many ways in which we can
utilise our limited resources to make this happen, but it will take some
careful deliberation in order to figure out an optimal way of working.
2. Detailing which features are the most important for our members. Once
decided we need to create a prioritised feature list which will be
worked through in sequence.
Engineering resources is clearly going to be a touchy subject. Some of
the Working Groups are already feeling over-worked and under staffed,
but engineers need to come from somewhere. To ease the strain I propose
an assignee rotation solution. Swapping out old for new on a per-cycle
or per-board enablement basis. The latter is the preferred solution, as
it ensures that there are no ends to tie-up and that a feature will be
complete before the STG saw fresh blood requiring learning-curve post
context-switch.
Carrying on with the resources theme, other teams from within Linaro
have offered support. As the work is meaningful and interesting there
should be no shortage of volunteers. Should the STG consist of members
from Platform for instance, or can some of the work be sub-contracted
out to them instead?
Hacking sessions at Connect
Anyone who's interested in undertaking some real coding that will end-up
upstream should attend these sessions. There will be plenty of
interesting work available to share around. No upstreaming experience
necessary. As long as you are capable of turning documentation into
functional code I'm sure we can put you to good use. :)
Hacking sessions will require clear documentation detailing the APIs for
each piece of functionality we wish to enable. Does this already exist?
If so, where can it be acquired (http://g.l.o/<wg-tree>/Documentation/)?
In the absence of clear documentation, would the WGs provide a Subject
Matter Expert (SME) to adopt the role of mentor for the sessions? Or
better still, both.
As already discussed, we require a detailed, prioritised feature list of
missing (i.e. to be coded) and enabled (i.e. fully implemented) features
for each board from each of the participating Working Groups.
Topics summarised
- Discuss: Platform development concurrency strategy
- Discuss: Assignee rotation/permanent re-assignment
- Required: Documentation
- Required: Engineering resources (during the sessions and in the team)
- Required: Prioritised missing/enabled feature lists for each platform
I think that'll do for now. :)
Kind regards,
Lee
--
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
M: +44 77 88 633 515
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
All,
For those that care about such things, located in the linaro wiki :
https://wiki.linaro.org/TomGall/LibJpegTurbo is benchmarking
information and numbers from various arm boards and OSes. Much thanks
must be given to Chao Yang for collecting the android numbers. The
page is an evolving beast but I thought worth drawing your attention
to.
OSes include:
Android 2.3.5
Linux (Linaro natty)
Libs measured include:
libjpeg62
libjpeg62 + android extentions
libjpeg-turbo - 1.1.90
libjpeg-turbo - 1.1.90 + android extentions
I've also included some some graphs for those that might want a higher
level comparison.
I will at some point add libjpeg v8 numbers into the mix.
Feedback most welcome.
--
Regards,
Tom
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns will not be discouraged."
- Colonel Henry Knox
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
w) tom.gall att linaro.org
w) tom_gall att vnet.ibm.com
h) tom_gall att mac.com
Hello,
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:19:39 -0700
Jean-Baptiste Queru <jbq(a)android.com> wrote:
> Chicken-and-egg: you can't submit a patch for the AOSP web site saying
> that the AOSP servers are down... because the AOSP servers are down.
>
> We're working on it.
Now that kernel.org is up, any ETA for when we can expect
android.git.kernel.org be back up too? Or at least, can we be sure it
will be the same hosts structure/setup as before?
Thanks,
Paul
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linarohttp://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
I've had a couple of questions about some new prefixes that are
showing up on https://android-build.linaro.org.
Here's the breakdown:
staging-
LT board support patches + jstultz's common Android tree, this is a
pretty stable point
landing-
LT board support patches on some version of the kernel
tracking-
LT board support patches + Linus HEAD + the Android tracking branch
<no prefix>
Only jstultz's common Android tree, the so-called upstreamed only support
These builds go into the LEB ranking system. This system gives the
build a star value depending on what's working (Ethernet, Audio,
etc..). If a build attains a certain star value it is called an LEB.
Feel free to catch me on this thread or on irc or mumble if you've got
any comments or questions.
--
Zach Pfeffer
Android Platform Team Lead, Linaro Platform Teams
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linarohttp://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
Hi All,
As part of the 11.09 cycle I've completed an extension to live-build3
that add linaro-media-create. This means with this branch of linaro's
live-build 3 one is able to build your custom image and directly
output it to either your SD media or to a file which you an dd
directly to the media of your choice.
The extension lives in a bzr branch at
lp:~tom-gall/live-build/integrate-linaro-media-create
This code should be considered beta quality. There are bugs. The code
is however useful. It will be especially useful when combined with the
cross build support for live-build that was announced as part of the
11.07 cycle.
I've updated my HOWTO which can be found here:
https://wiki.linaro.org/LiveHelper/Hacking
If you run into issues please either file a bug in launchpad
https://bugs.launchpad.net/linaro-ubuntu , post to the list, or grab
me on irc. (tgall_foo or Dr_Who)
--
Regards,
Tom
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns will not be discouraged."
- Colonel Henry Knox
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
w) tom.gall att linaro.org
w) tom_gall att vnet.ibm.com
h) tom_gall att mac.com
Hi -
Recently at Linaro we've started a new tree linaro-androidization-tracking,
which is pretty much "common-3.1"[1] at the moment on 3.1-rc8 basis.
http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/andygreen/kernel-tilt.git;a=summary
We have already been running a kernel tree tracking Linus HEAD since 2.6.39,
which has OMAP4 / Panda enablement stuff on top of Linus HEAD, so we have
some experience with the rough and tumble.
What we missed having was an "all year round" Androidization tree that we
could combine it with to casually create Android versions of the work we
were doing on Vanilla Linus HEAD basis. We used common-3.0 for that for a
while late in the kernel release cycle when it was tracking Linus HEAD
itself and that was great. But common-3.0 like the name suggests is really
a release tree, and it stops tracking at release, and a new one starts up
only late in the next kernel release cycle.
Actually, it would be a big advantage for many folks to not be doing their
Android kernel development on lagging releases, but by tracking Linus HEAD.
They would have access to latest stuff already and they don't have to think
about backport or later forwardport stuff to a new release, it's constantly
tracking HEAD and being adapted.
One side-effect of using this tracking methodology is if they want release
trees, they can just clone their tracking branch at the time Linus HEAD is
at a release point and bam, a hopefully fully working release tree is
there. Another very nice side-effect is they can do the bulk of the work
once on a Vanilla Linus HEAD basis, and get and Android version of that work
routinely by merging or rebasing in the Androidization tree - instead of
doing and validating work twice on separate Vanilla and Android trees.
So linaro-androidization-tracking is our attempt at that Linus HEAD
Androidization tree, moving it on regularly and fixing breakage as it
happens throughout the cycle. It's generic same as common-, it should be
usable for any arch or board to Androidize a vanilla kernel that is on the
same Linus HEAD basis just by merge or rebase action.
It seemed this effort might be interesting for the guys that make the
common- trees, since if there was a tracking Androidization tree, in fact
common- releases for release trees like common-3.1 would just naturally fall
out of it when Linus HEAD was at 3.1. So I'd be very happy to hear any
opinions about that.
Another side-issue is we are also looking at refactoring the Androidization
patchset into topic branches, at the moment they're kind of reflecting the
history that they were applied on plus or minus some munging around. So,
all the net core patches for example would be together in one series, then
all the wireless ones in a series on top of that, etc. It seems they would
be easier to maintain then, opinions on that approach are also welcome.
-Andy
[1] TI have a tree on omapzoom where we got the patches from
http://git.omapzoom.org/?p=kernel/omap.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/p-androi…
(Apologies for any duplication, googlegroups needs mail sent from Google
mail)
--
Andy Green | TI Landing Team Leader
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs | Follow Linaro
http://facebook.com/pages/Linaro/155974581091106 -
http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://linaro.org/linaro-blog
Hi,
Follow-up to Linaro 11.09 RC call for testing thread:
> > IMO, we should stick to Monday for the RC images and call for testing.
> > It gives 3 full days to collect the reports and fixes critical issues.
> > Though, using autobuilt images isn't optimal. What about triggering a
> > manual rebuild on Monday at 16:00 UTC to get the RC images?
> > This way it gives some extra time for integration, but not a full day.
> > Unfortunately, the schedule is tight on a monthly release cadence...
> > so we don't have much flexibility.
>
> We could just have a build job scheduled at 16 UTC at offspring, so we
> avoid requiring manual builds. I believe this would be our best option
> (and it usually takes around 3 hours to build all images).
This is effective now. Ubuntu build jobs are scheduled at 16:00 UTC.
Cheers,
--
Fathi Boudra
Linaro Release Manager | Validation Project Manager
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Hi,
Not getting any answers in #linaro. Which version of
linaro-media-create is required for oneiric based hwpacks and images?
Should the PPA version suffice or does one need to use the latest
greatest from bzr?
Thanks!
--
Regards,
Tom
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns will not be discouraged."
- Colonel Henry Knox
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
w) tom.gall att linaro.org
w) tom_gall att vnet.ibm.com
h) tom_gall att mac.com