linaro-dev March 2011

linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org

123 participants
172 discussions

[PATCH] arm/dt: Add basic device tree support for mx51 babbage board

by Jason Liu

--- No uboot patch since uboot patch already in linaro uboot git Signed-off-by: Jason Liu <jason.hui(a)linaro.org> --- arch/arm/boot/dts/mx51-babbage.dts | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ arch/arm/mach-mx5/Kconfig | 6 ++++++ arch/arm/mach-mx5/board-mx51_babbage.c | 6 ++++++ 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mx51-babbage.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mx51-babbage.dts new file mode 100644 index 0000000..179f745 --- /dev/null +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mx51-babbage.dts @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +/* + * Copyright 2011 Linaro Ltd. + * + * The code contained herein is licensed under the GNU General Public + * License. You may obtain a copy of the GNU General Public License + * Version 2 or later at the following locations: + * + * http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.html + * http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html + */ + +/dts-v1/; + +/ { + model = "Freescale i.MX51 Babbage"; + compatible = "fsl,mx51-babbage"; + #address-cells = <1>; + #size-cells = <1>; + + aliases { + }; + + memory { + device_type = "memory"; + reg = <0x90000000 0x20000000>; + }; + + chosen { + }; +}; diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mx5/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-mx5/Kconfig index 83ee088..aae51ee 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-mx5/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mx5/Kconfig @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ comment "MX5 platforms:" config MACH_MX51_BABBAGE bool "Support MX51 BABBAGE platforms" select SOC_IMX51 + select MX5_DT_COMMON select IMX_HAVE_PLATFORM_IMX2_WDT select IMX_HAVE_PLATFORM_IMX_I2C select IMX_HAVE_PLATFORM_IMX_UART @@ -114,6 +115,11 @@ config MACH_EUKREA_MBIMXSD51_BASEBOARD endchoice +config MX5_DT_COMMON + bool + select USE_OF + select PROC_DEVICETREE + config MX51_EFIKA_COMMON bool select SOC_IMX51 diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mx5/board-mx51_babbage.c b/arch/arm/mach-mx5/board-mx51_babbage.c index b2ecd19..30b92ca 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-mx5/board-mx51_babbage.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mx5/board-mx51_babbage.c @@ -399,6 +399,11 @@ static struct sys_timer mx51_babbage_timer = { .init = mx51_babbage_timer_init, }; +static const char *mx51_babbage_dt_match[] __initdata = { + "fsl,mx51-babbage", + NULL +}; + MACHINE_START(MX51_BABBAGE, "Freescale MX51 Babbage Board") /* Maintainer: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria(a)canonical.com> */ .boot_params = MX51_PHYS_OFFSET + 0x100, @@ -407,4 +412,5 @@ MACHINE_START(MX51_BABBAGE, "Freescale MX51 Babbage Board") .init_irq = mx51_init_irq, .timer = &mx51_babbage_timer, .init_machine = mx51_babbage_init, + .dt_compat = mx51_babbage_dt_match, MACHINE_END -- 1.7.1

14 years, 3 months

[PATCH] ARM: device-tree: Add basic device tree support for Beagleboad

by Tixy

[PATCH] ARM: device-tree: Add basic device tree support for Beagleboad Note, no corresponding U-Boot changes to U-Boot are required as the Linaro version already has these.

14 years, 3 months

Android Build Farm

by Dechesne, Nicolas

Hi there, i have seen what you've started to implement with the Android Build service. I am wondering if: - all the source code / tools you've put in place is available (source code) - how easy (or not) would that be to deploy this infrastructure 'internally' so that we can use it for private builds for example? - what are the requirements on the 'server/host' to be able to replicate this setup? thx, nicolas

14 years, 3 months

Status of the linaro-2.6.38 kernel

by Nicolas Pitre

Hello everyone, As I've been working on the integration of the latest developments and fixes from upstream into the linaro-2.6.38 kernel lately, it became quickly evident that major merge conflicts were to be expected. The problem stems from the fact that we opened the 2.6.38 branch early i.e. around the 2.6.38-rc5 kernel. Many patches that were merged into the Linaro kernel have been subsequently modified by their respective maintainers until they were merged upstream, meaning that what we have now in mainline is different from what the Linaro kernel tree has. This creates several issues: - It is hard to verify that what is in the Linaro tree is actually the latest and the best version of a patch. - Merging additional fixes from upstream often ends up in merge conflicts requiring manual resolution, sometimes non-trivial ones, which is in itself a bug hazard. - People wanting to contribute patches to the Linaro kernel potentially have to create a different patch than what they would submit upstream. Given those issues, I decided to rebuild the linaro-2.6.38 branch from scratch to see where that would bring me. And as could be expected, the result looks nicer and it is much easier to work with than the current tree. For example, this allowed me to merge the latest OMAP support from mainline as is, including the latest fixes, without any need for backport work nor major conflict resolution. Another advantage is that the commit SHA1 references are now identical in most cases to what can be found into mainline. So... my question is: should we switch to this rebuilt tree or not? There are drawbacks with such a move of course: - All the testing done so far would be void. This is however not as bad as this may look as the rebuilt kernel contains fixes for existing bugs in the current tree, and the rebuilt kernel is using patches that have and still are being tested by a wider community. - I didn't forward port a couple series of patches that are available in the current Linaro tree and not in mainline yet, including: * DT support (Grant Likely) * DVFS and PM for OMAP (Vishwanath Sripathy, Vishwanath BS) * Some ux500 fixups (Linus Walleij) * clock debug information (Yong Shen) * Samsung CPUIDLE (Amit Kachhap) So I would prefer if the people responsible for those patches did resubmit their patches once they apply to the new tree (that should be even easier now to apply patches that were meant for mainline). - The history of the rebuilt tree is obviously different from the current tree's. This means special care when updating to the new tree with Git. But overall I think there are more advantages than disadvantages for such a move. What other people think? The current rebuilt tree can be seen at: http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=kernel/linux-linaro-2.6.38.git;a=shortlog;h=… or obtained from: git://git.linaro.org/kernel/linux-linaro-2.6.38.git (the "rebuilt" branch) Nicolas

14 years, 3 months

[PATCH] toolchain/build: Fix Linaro Android toolchain linking fail with FDO

by Luse Cheng

Add --with-sysroot to fix Linaro Android toolchain linking fail with FDO --- linaro-build.sh | 15 ++++++++++++++- 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/linaro-build.sh b/linaro-build.sh index f238ba8..97da183 100755 --- a/linaro-build.sh +++ b/linaro-build.sh @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ ARG_WGET_LINARO_GCC_SRC= ARG_BZR_LINARO_GCC_SRC= ARG_WITH_GCC= +ARG_WITH_SYSROOT= ARG_APPLY_PATCH=no @@ -53,6 +54,7 @@ usage() { echo " --prefix=<path> Specify installation path [/tmp/android-toolchain-eabi]" echo " --toolchain-src=<path> Toolchain source directory [`dirname $PWD`]" echo " --with-gcc=<path> Specify GCC source (support: directory, bzr, url)" + echo " --with-sysroot=<path> Specify SYSROOT directory" echo " --apply-gcc-patch=<yes|no> Apply Linaro's extra gcc-patches [no]" echo " --help Print this help message" echo @@ -134,6 +136,9 @@ while [ $# -gt 0 ]; do --with-gcc=*) ARG_WITH_GCC="${ARG#*=}" ;; + --with-sysroot=*) + ARG_WITH_SYSROOT="${ARG#*=}" + ;; --apply-gcc-patch=yes | --apply-gcc-patch=no) ARG_APPLY_PATCH="${ARG#*=}" ;; @@ -149,6 +154,7 @@ done BUILD_ARCH=`uname -m` BUILD_WITH_LOCAL= BUILD_HOST= +BUILD_SYSROOT= if [ "${ARG_TOOLCHAIN_SRC_DIR}" = "" ] || [ ! -f "${ARG_TOOLCHAIN_SRC_DIR}/build/configure" ] ; then error "--toolchain-src-dir is not set or ${ARG_TOOLCHAIN_SRC_DIR} is not ANDROID_TOOLCHAIN_ROOT" @@ -158,6 +164,13 @@ if [ "${ARG_WITH_GCC}" = "" ]; then error "Must specify --with-gcc to build toolchain" fi +if [ "${ARG_WITH_SYSROOT}" != "" ]; then + if [ ! -d "${ARG_WITH_SYSROOT}" ]; then + error "SYSROOT ${ARG_WITH_SYSROOT} not exist" + fi + BUILD_SYSROOT="--with-sysroot=${ARG_WITH_SYSROOT}" +fi + getGCCFrom $ARG_WITH_GCC if [ "x${ARG_APPLY_PATCH}" = "xyes" ]; then @@ -172,7 +185,6 @@ if [ "x${ARG_APPLY_PATCH}" = "xyes" ]; then cd - fi - GCC_VARIANT=`basename ${ARG_LINARO_GCC_SRC_DIR}` GCC_VARIANT=${GCC_VARIANT#gcc-*} @@ -190,6 +202,7 @@ ${ARG_TOOLCHAIN_SRC_DIR}/build/configure \ --prefix=${ARG_PREFIX_DIR} --target=arm-eabi \ --disable-docs --disable-nls \ --host=${BUILD_HOST} --build=${BUILD_HOST} \ + ${BUILD_SYSROOT} \ --with-gcc-version=${GCC_VARIANT} \ --with-binutils-version=2.20.1 \ --with-gmp-version=4.2.4 \ -- 1.7.2.5

14 years, 3 months

Demo at the technical showcase at LDS?

by Michael Opdenacker

Hi, We are looking for volunteers who could run demos and short tutorials at the technical showcase we are organizing at LDS. In particular, we hope that the landing teams will be able to show the newest community boards in action, which almost nobody has seen in real life yet. Here are suggestions: * Power management demos, showing suspend/resume/hibernation and the time they take, measuring power on the board, using powerdebug... * Debugging quick tutorial * perf demos * Toolchain performance benchmarks * Video codec performance benchmarks * Demos of new QEMU targets * linaro-media-create quick tutorial * Device tree demo * Linaro Android Build Service * ... and anything useful you could think of, typically advertising for your contributions to Linaro! The main goal would be to advertise our work, both internally and externally, and then start interesting discussions, and hopefully end up with improvements and new ideas. We will try to videotape some demos and publish them on YouTube if appropriate. There should also be a vote for the best demos and prizes will be given away. I let Kiko and others add their own suggestions. See https://wiki.linaro.org/Events/2011-05-LDS/Showcase/ for details about the event. Thanks in advance, Cheers, Michael. -- Michael Opdenacker, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com + 33 621 604 642

14 years, 3 months

Any DS-5 users out there?

by Pawel Moll

Hi Folks, As some of you may remember, Linaro engineers have access to free DS-5 licenses. If you don't know what DS-5 is, you can stop reading now ;-) If you know what DS-5 is, you may also use it, either on daily basis or just occasionally? I'd be most grateful for letting me know about it. It's nearly 5 months since I presented it at UDS, so I'd love to know whether you found it useful by now. I know that at least some of you tried it, so simple "yes, use it every day, love it" or "well, sometimes, if there's nothing better to do" or maybe "naaah, it's absolutely rubbish" will do. Of course don't hesitate to elaborate more :-) Cheers! Paweł

14 years, 3 months

Notice: Releases to Cycles

by Joey Stanford

Hi, Kiko requested that we mass rename Releases to Cycles. This makes sense since a release is a point in time event and we operate under a larger cycle. This is now done and a redirect has been put into place. As you see references which are incorrect in wiki pages, please consider doing some drive-by clean-up/gardening. Thanks, Joey

14 years, 3 months

Re: Device Tree on ARM status report - Mar 20

by Grant Likely

[cc'ing linaro-dev mailing list; other people will probably have the same question] On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 4:40 AM, Tixy <tixy(a)yxit.co.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 03:25 -0600, Grant Likely wrote: >> For each board, I need an engineer to do the following: >> > [...] >> 2) Enable CONFIG_OF and CONFIG_PROC_DEVICETREE in the kernel > [...] > > Do we want these enabled by default when a supported platform is > configured?. From someone else's example[1] I guess this would be done > by editing arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig like > > config MACH_OMAP3_BEAGLE > bool "OMAP3 BEAGLE board" > depends on ARCH_OMAP3 > default y > select OMAP_PACKAGE_CBB > + select USE_OF > + select PROC_DEVICETREE > > Though I guess we could get PROC_DEVICETREE selected at a higher level > if USE_OF is selected? (I'm new to Linux and its configuration methods). I would omit these two lines. Device tree support is an optional feature. g.

14 years, 3 months

Notes & Actions: Linaro Graphics Working Group - Mar 23, 2011

by Alexandros Frantzis

Hi, notes and actions from our Wednesday graphics working group call are available on the wiki: + https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Middleware/Graphics/Notes/2011-03-23 Details about when and where of this meeting can be found here: + https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Middleware/Graphics#Weekly%20Public%2… Summary ======= * Kernel tree for UMP and Mali device driver awaiting landing team approval. * Benchmark/validation: cairo and Qt traces created, packaged and on developer PPA. * cairo-gles2 * Patchset "Add r8g8b8a8 and r8g8b8x8 formats" sent to upstream Pixman for review. * Key driver bugs affecting current work (may have been fixed, but not yet in archive): * cairo-gles2 * eglInitialize performance on OMAP4 (LP #690821) * color component swapping on efikamx (LP #736869) * No GL_OES_texture_npot extension on OMAP4. * glcompbench * EGL_KHR_image_pixmap functionality flaky on efikamx (LP #733403) * glcompbench rendering is not presented on screen on efikamx (LP #736811) Risks / Issues ============== * Aforementioned bugs may impact validation effort and release of work. * Skia runtime detection of NEON work stalled in upstream apathy. Thanks, -- - Alexandros

14 years, 3 months

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
18
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-dev March 2011