Hello,
Well, before proceeding further, there seems that tarball naming
convention has changed. For example, now it's
gcc-linaro-4.6-2011.07.tar.bz2 whereas before it was
gcc-linaro-4.6-2011.06-0.tar.bz2 . What's worse is that inside it's
still gcc-linaro-4.6-2011.07-0 top-level directory. The build script
uses tarball basename to find out uncompressed dir name, so builds fail
now. This can be worked around on build script level, but is example of
random inconsistency, and if let such will proliferate, there will be
more and more workarounds everywhere, so would be nice if toolchain WG
fixed tarball name on their side.
Thanks,
Paul
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:18:21 +0300
Paul Sokolovsky <Paul.Sokolovsky(a)linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:44:10 +0100
> Chao Yang <chao.yang(a)linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Just a reminder that the bug was found in gcc 4.6, to which, I
> > think, the patch should apply, not 4.5 only.
>
> Oops, sure, I just copied the wrong link, it should be
> http://launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/4.6/4.6-2011.07/+download/gcc-linaro-4.6-20…
> instead.
>
> >
> > Thanks and regards
> > On 20 Jul 2011 21:12, "Paul Sokolovsky" <paul.sokolovsky(a)linaro.org>
> > wrote:
> > > Hello Ulrich,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:07:50 +0200
> > > Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand(a)de.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Zach Pfeffer <zach.pfeffer(a)linaro.org> wrote on 07/20/2011
> > >> 08:56:32 PM:
> > >> > Michael Hope <michael.hope(a)linaro.org> wrote:
> > >> > > Hey, we're getting ahead of ourselves here. The patch clears
> > >> > > the problem but it hasn't landed upstream and may not be
> > >> > > correct. We also haven't laid the ground work for triaging
> > >> > > the problem including:
> > >> > > * Describing the compiler involved (mainly how it's built)
> > >> > > * Reducing to a test case (normally preprocessed source)
> > >> > > * Reproducing and reducing the fault
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Any fix can introduce other bugs, so it's generally best to
> > >> > > work around a last minute issue and then test it properly for
> > >> > > the next release. We have a range of options:
> > >> > > * Work around it in the packaging (such as changing the
> > >> > > optimisation level, turning of debug, etc)
> > >> > > * Work around it in the source
> > >> > > * Carry a local patch to GCC
> > >> > > * Use an earlier release (say 2011.05)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > We should talk about this in Cambourne especially in
> > >> > > untangling what the Android compiler is, how it's built, and
> > >> > > adding it as a test case for our releases.
> > >> >
> > >> > Michael,
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks for the feedback. Lets chat at Cambourne. For right now,
> > >> > can we reference Ken's tree to build a WIP Android to
> > >> > facilitate debugging? Could Ken continue to work with Chao to
> > >> > create a testcase that shows the bug? I have our session on
> > >> > Wednesday at 11:00 AM now where we can sort out some more
> > >> > structural issues.
> > >>
> > >> [Pulling in Richard on CC as well.]
> > >>
> > >> Note that by now Richard has done a proper fix of the underlying
> > >> compiler problem, which has now landed upstream:
> > >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01623.html
> > >>
> > >> So my recommendation would be to use this month's Linaro GCC
> > >> release with Richard's patch on top as the basis for the Android
> > >> compiler. (By next month, I'd assume Linaro GCC will contain
> > >> Richard's patch to start with.)
> > >
> > > That sounds like good plan. So, what process the toolchain team
> > > would suggest for this? I can imagine few choices:
> > >
> > > 1. Toolchain team prepares a tarball for Android team, which is
> > >
> > http://launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/4.5/4.5-2011.07/+download/gcc-linaro-4.5-20…
> > > + http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01623.html
> > > 2. Toolchain team creates a bzr branch withich is 2011.07 release
> > > (with any possible bugfix releases) + that patch applied.
> > > 3. I just add support for applying patches to android-build and
> > > build
> > >
> > http://launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/4.5/4.5-2011.07/+download/gcc-linaro-4.5-20…
> > > with the patch applied.
> > >
> > > My own preference probably would be even p.3, as it doesn't create
> > > extra entities, but as we want more people try and adopt Linaro
> > > tools, p.1 would be still preferable I guess.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best Regards
> > >>
> > >> Ulrich Weigand
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Dr. Ulrich Weigand | Phone: +49-7031/16-3727
> > >> STSM, GNU compiler and toolchain for Linux on System z and
> > >> Cell/B.E. IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
> > >> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter | Geschäftsführung:
> > >> Dirk Wittkopp
> > >> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen | Registergericht: Amtsgericht
> > >> Stuttgart, HRB 243294
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
> > > Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro
> > > http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg -
> > > http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
>
>
>
--
Best Regards,
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
Hello everyone.
I was wondering if anyone is using the SATA port on IMX53 loco (aka the
quick start). The obvious issue is that of no power to drive the hard
disk or SSD. Unless you have an eSATA enclosure and an appropriate SATA
-> eSATA cable, how would you (or how are you) using this port.
Three things come to my mind:
1) Purchase a random ATX power supply unit, connect the 12V rail to the
disk, connect the SATA cable to the disk and the board. Short the
appropriate cable on the ATX power supply to turn this on. (risky, looks
ugly, unsafe).
2) Purchase a USB-SATA dongle, especially the bare-bone model, get a
SATA power extender cable, connect one to the USB-SATA board, connect
the other to the disk. This way we can power the disk from USB via the
adapter and still use the SATA port on IMX.
3) Variant of 2) that could drive 3.25" disks. Purchase a 3.5HDD
enclosure, take it apart, assuming it still has cables (not like most
2.5" enclosures that have cable-less connection to the disk) connect
just the power cable to the disk and discard the rest.
Each solution seems hacky and ugly to me, perhaps one of you has found a
better way.
Thanks
ZK
Team,
George and Stephen have requested a side-by-side Panda demo by August
8th that can be loaded onto 2 SD cards and runs automatically when the
Panda boards boot up and features the great work that Linaro has done.
Some ideas (thanks to John for a lot of these):
Power saving measurements
libjpeg-turbo
Software decode
Software 3-D
Hardware 3-D
Software decode with power savings
Additional functionality in Linaro's builds
Music mixing
In essence, we'll take a stock Android (Pandroid) and run it against a
sooped up Android. We have some time to get this done so hopefully
we'll be able to throw something together.
Please send out some ideas, I'll get a meeting together to chat more.
These things may also be good for TSC drivers.
-Zach
The first version of this patch is a part of mmc non-blocking v9 patchset:
[PATCH v9 11/12] mmc: core: add random fault injection
change log:
v2 - Resolve build issue in mmc core.c due to multiple init_module by
removing the fault inject module.
- Export fault injection functions to make them available for modules
- Update fault injection documentation on MMC IO
Per Forlin (3):
fault-inject: make fault injection available for modules
mmc: core: add random fault injection
fault injection: add documentation on MMC IO fault injection
Documentation/fault-injection/fault-injection.txt | 5 ++
drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/mmc/core/debugfs.c | 5 ++
include/linux/mmc/host.h | 3 +
lib/Kconfig.debug | 11 ++++
lib/fault-inject.c | 2 +
6 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
--
1.7.4.1
From: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria(a)verdurent.com>
(Please bear with pull-request for a single patch, but we're creating a
consolidation tree through which we will offer various topic branches for
merge into the Linaro kernel in the future)
The following changes since commit 620917de59eeb934b9f8cf35cc2d95c1ac8ed0fc:
Linux 3.0-rc7 (2011-07-11 16:51:52 -0700)
are available in the git repository at:
git://git.linaro.org/people/amitk/linux-linaro-pmwg.git smp
Vincent Guittot (1):
Add ARM cpu topology definition
arch/arm/Kconfig | 25 +++++++
arch/arm/include/asm/cputype.h | 6 ++
arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h | 33 +++++++++
arch/arm/kernel/Makefile | 1 +
arch/arm/kernel/smp.c | 5 ++
arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 148 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6 files changed, 218 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
--
1.7.4.1
Dear ARM fans,
Linaro Developer Platform team organises every week (Wednesday 14:00 -
18:00 UTC) an ARM porting Jam. The idea is to gather all developers together to
fix userspace portability issues across the board. The list of bugs
being worked on
is at launchpad:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=arm-porting-queue&orderby…
Interested in making the software in Ubuntu run better on ARM? Join us on
the #linaro channel on irc.linaro.org today!
Cheers,
Riku
Hi.
While I was trying to get our docs published on readthedocs.org I
stumbled on a odd thing. Apparently they use django 1.3 internally and
our requirement on django << 1.3 conflicts with that.
I have quickly upgraded lava-server to use 1.3 and (surprisingly) all
tests passed. I will play around with 1.3 to see if there are any issues
that test suite does not spot.
Apart from staticfiles transition (which I just realized can happen in
parallel, as we can keep using staticfiles 0.3.4 and django 1.3 (and
only transition to contrib.staticfiles or staticfiles 1.x when we wish)
I found one issue: openid
It seems that the openid backend we are using is somewhat outdated and
does not implement the required interfaces. For 1.3 that's okay but 1.4
will not be compatible with that API any more.
This causes three tests to be skipped, and a warning message to be
logged. I was wondering how we should proceed:
1) Upgrade to latest django-openid-auth/openid in hopes that it works
better.
2) Ignore the problem
3) Upgrade as in 1) and fix any missing issues.
What do you guys think?
ZK