Enclosed you'll find a link to the agenda, minutes and actions from the
Linaro kernel working group weekly meeting of Feb 14, 2011.
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/KernelConsolidation/Meetings/2011-02-…
=== Summary ===
* Device Tree
* A critical bug has been fixed, patches have been respun and submitted
to mailing list and ARM and devicetree/ARM branch
* Submitted second version of Samsung's s5pv310 device tree enabled
machine.
* Basic DT boot up ok on mx51 babbage board with uboot and linux kernel.
* Will submit uboot patch for DT support on MX51/53 board soon.
* Sent patches for powerpc irq_data conversion, will have some more patches
out soon, the work will result in common code between powerpc and arm ( at
least this is the goal).
* MX53 uboot support, code upstream done!
* Tested kexec-reboot on OMAP3 kexec-reboot works fine on OMAP3.
* U-Boot SPL: Implementing remaining features in the clock module, enabled
Thumb2 build - reduced SRAM footprint and integrated with mkimage for IFT
creation
* Re-posted omap3/4 Thumb-2 compatiblity patches and did some power
management testing to exercise the code.
* Linaro kernel tree maintenance: Merged multiple patches this week.
* Changed omap_hsmmc driver to use double buffering.
Mounir
This patchset adds Samsung's s5pv310 machine with device tree support. This
is based on
git://git.secretlab.ca/git/linux-2.6 devicetree/test
A new machine s5pv310-dt is added along with a dts file for the smdkv310 board.
Some of the features introduced in this patchset are
1. Tested on smdkv310 board and information such as bootargs, memory information
and console port register defaults are obtained from the device tree.
2. Add basic device tree file for smdkv310 board.
3. Device tree based probe enabled in watchdog timer driver (s3c2410-wdt).
4. UART driver modified to obtain default console register values from
device tree.
In addition, the first 5 patches have been tested with
git://git.secretlab.ca/git/linux-2.6 devicetree/arm
and (with minor modification [driver/tty/serial -> drivers/serial])
git://git.secretlab.ca/git/linux-2.6 devicetree/arm-linaro-2.6.37
Thomas Abraham (7):
ARM: s5pv310-dt: Add s5pv310 machine with device tree support
ARM: s5pv310-dt: Add a basic dts file for SMDKV310 machine
ARM: s5pv310-dt: Add support for probing platform bus on s5pv310 dt-enabled machine
watchdog: s3c2410: Add support for device tree based probe
serial: samsung: Get console register defaults from device tree
ARM: s5pv310-dt: Enable snooping of platform_device registrations
serial: samsung: Get default port register settings from device tree
arch/arm/mach-s5pv310/Kconfig | 7 +++
arch/arm/mach-s5pv310/Makefile | 1 +
arch/arm/mach-s5pv310/mach-s5pv310-dt.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm/mach-s5pv310/mach-smdkv310.dts | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c | 27 ++++++++++
drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c | 10 ++++
6 files changed, 208 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-s5pv310/mach-s5pv310-dt.c
create mode 100755 arch/arm/mach-s5pv310/mach-smdkv310.dts
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Paul Larson <paul.larson(a)linaro.org>wrote:
> 2. One queue TOTAL. One queue may seem like a bottleneck, but I don't
>>> think it has to be in practice. One process can monitor that queue, then
>>> launch a process or thread to handle each new job that comes in.
>>>
>> I think RabbitMQ message can have the ability to include the board
>> information in it to use one queue, and also we can use different queues for
>> different types of boards.
>>
> Right, but my question was, if you are already encoding that information in
> the job stream, what is the advantage to having a queue for each board type,
> rather than a single queue?
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Job description:
>>> I'd like to see some more detail here. Can you provide an example of a
>>> job file that would illustrate how you see it working? We also need to
>>> specify the underlying mechanisms that will handle parsing what's in the job
>>> file, and calling [something?] to do those tasks. What we have here feels
>>> like it might be a bit cumbersome.
>>>
>> I added an detailed one on the spec, like:
>>
>> 1.
>>
>> [Beagle-1,
>> http://snapshots.linaro.org/11.05-daily/linaro-hwpacks/imx51/20110131/0/ima…,
>>
>> http://snapshots.linaro.org/11.05-daily/linaro-headless/20110131/0/images/t…,
>> 900, ["abrek", "LTP", 180], ["none", "echo 100 > abc", 1], ... ]
>> 2.
>>
>> [IMX51-2, 20100131, 900, ["abrek", "LTP", 180], ["none", "echo 100 >
>> abc", 1], ... ]
>>
>> This looks almost like JSON, which is what Zygmunt was originally pushing
> for IIRC. If we are already going down that path, seems it would be
> sensible to take it a step further and have defined sections. For example:
>
> Tests:[
> {
> name:"LTP",
> testsuite:"abrek",
> subtest:"ltp", <---- not thrilled about that name "subtest",
> but can't think of something better to call it at the moment
> timeout:180,
> reboot_after:True
> },
> {
> name:"echo test",
> testsuite:"shell",
> timeout:20
> reboot_after:False
> }
> ]
> What do you think? Obviously, there would be other sections for things
> like defining the host characteristics, the image to deploy, etc.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>> Other questions...
>>> What if we have a dependency, how does that get installed on the target
>>> image? For example, if I want to do a test that requires bootchart be
>>> installed before the system is booted, we should be able to specify that,
>>> and have it installed before booting.
>>>
>>> What about installing necessary test suites? How do we tell it, in
>>> advance, what we need to have installed, and how does it get on the image
>>> before we boot, or before we start testing?
>>>
>> I think validation tools, test suites and necessary files are likely to
>> install after test image deployment.
>>
> Yes, clearly they have to be installed after deployment, but we may also
> need to consider them installing BEFORE we actually boot the test image.
>
> Had another thought on this tonight, I didn't hear much back on the
previous proposal, but how about something more like this as an example of
what a job description might look like. In this scenario, there would be
some metadata for the job itself, such as timeout values, etc. Then steps
that would define commands with parameters. That would allow us to be more
flexible, and add support for more commands without changing the format.
Hopefully the mailer doesn't mangle this too badly. :)
{
"job_name": "foo",
"target": "panda01",
"timeout": 18000,
"steps": [
{
"command": "deploy",
"parameters":
{
"rootfs": "
http://snapshots.linaro.org/11.05-daily/linaro-developer/20110208/0/images/…
"
"hwpack": "
http://snapshots.linaro.org/11.05-daily/linaro-hwpacks/panda/20110208/0/ima…
"
}
},
{
"command": "boot_test_image"
},
{
"command": "test_abrek",
"parameters":
{
"test_name": "ltp"
}
},
{
"command": "submit_results",
"parameters":
{
"server": "http://dashboard.linaro.org",
"stream": "panda01-ltp"
}
}
]
}
Thanks,
Paul Larson
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Vishwanath Sripathy wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> Pls find attached the patch set for supporting DVFS feature on OMAP.
> These patches have been generated against latest Linaro 2.6.37 tree
> and tested on OMAP3430 and ZOOM3.
>
> Note that these patches are already posted to linux omap mailing list
> (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/495021/) and they are under
> discussion. So I have prefixed these patches as WIP. Kindly merge
> these patches for 11.05 release.
A few notes on those patches:
1) Please CC linaro-dev next time so other people are aware of what you
did, what you sent me, etc. I've added it to this reply. This way
at least if nothing happens with your patches it's easier to put the
blame on me. :-)
2) Your cover message contains this in plain sight in the diffstat part:
mode change 100644 => 100755 arch/arm/mach-omap2/voltage.c
mode change 100644 => 100755 arch/arm/plat-omap/cpu-omap.c
This is clearly wrong to flag .c files as executables, so you should
take care to fix that and understand why this happened in the first
place. Incidentally this mode change does not appear in any of your
patches.
3) All your patches were numbered, except for:
V4-OMAP3-PM-Set-clear-T2-bit-for-Smartreflex-on-TWL.patch
Since I'm sure you know better than I do where that patch should be
applied in the series (if at all) you should rename it appropriately,
or at least let me know in which order to apply it (I initially
applied it last based on the date recorded in the patch but that
didn't work out).
4) This patch is a bit thin on explanation:
[PATCH 08/13] [PM WIP OMAP] OMAP3: cpufreq driver changes for DVFS support
Changes in the omap cpufreq driver for DVFS support.
Signed-off-by: Vishwanath BS <vishwanath.bs(a)ti.com>
What are those changes? It is not obvious to me looking at the
patch. All the other patches are sufficiently documented.
I've applied them to the linaro-2.6.37 branch. Please note that the
11.05 Linaro release will be based on a 2.6.38 branch I'm about to
create. Can you tell me what is the likelyhood for those patches to be
merged upstream for the next merge window?
Nicolas