Hi folks,
The way Versatile Express hardware packs are to be delivered is set to
change.
Currently, both Platform and the ARM Landing Team (Tixy and me) generate
hwpacks for Versatile Express A9.
In future, only the ARM Landing Team will be generating hardware packs
for the Versatile Express platforms.
The LT have a some great features to roll out in the coming months, such
as UEFI, Device Tree, A5 and A15 CoreTile support. It makes sense for
Linaro to only support one variant of the hardware pack and gives the
Landing Team more control over feature deployment.
You can find our hardware pack in the current Linaro releases, via
http://www.linaro.org/downloads in the Developer and Community Builds
section and/or via releases.linaro.org.
For example, you'll find the current LT hwpack here:
http://releases.linaro.org/11.12/ubuntu/oneiric-hwpacks/hwpack_linaro-lt-ve…
Regards,
Ryan
Dude this totally rocks. Also adding linaro-dev.
On 17 January 2012 22:59, Andy Doan <andy.doan(a)linaro.org> wrote:
> Sorry for the wide distribution, but I wasn't sure who all would be
> interested.
>
> I spent time over the last month updating the Android monthly toolchain
> benchmark process[1] to pull its benchmark data from LAVA tests that are
> stored in validation.linaro.org. Here's an example test run[2].
>
> This month's results will be published to the wiki as I normally do.
> However, I spent some time last weekend looking at how to handle this on
> the validation server as well. I first toyed with trying to do a simple
> report plugin. However, it really didn't quite have everything I thought
> was needed.
>
> I wound up using the "LAVA kernel CI views" project as a skeleton to
> create something for Android. I've got a local prototype that's starting
> to do just about everything I want (I'm fighting some issues the the
> javascript FLOT library for my charts). I'm attaching a screenshot so
> you can get a rough idea.
>
> Before I really invest time, I wanted to get people's thoughts. Some big
> questions for me:
>
> 1) Is anyone against doing this?
> 2) The project is currently called "Android Benchmarks". However, I'm
> wondering if we should make more of a generic view for "Android".
> "Toolchain Benchmarks" could then be one part of this, but we'd have a
> spot to add other things if needed/wanted. Due to how projects are shown
> across the top of validation.l.o, I think we need pretty concise entries.
> 3) If the general thought is "this looks okay", then are you guys okay
> with targeting it for next month?
>
> [1]
> <https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Android/AndroidToolchainBenchmarking/2011-…>
> [2]
> <http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/dashboard/streams/anonymous/doanac…
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linaro-android mailing list
> linaro-android(a)lists.linaro.org
> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-android
>
--
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
The driver support single core and multi core ARM SoCs. For multi core,
it assume all cores share the same clock and voltage.
Changes in v2:
- add volatage change support
- change '_' in property name to '-'
- use initial value to calculate loops_per_jiffy
- fix reading cpu_volts property bug
- let cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo routines handle cpu_freq_khz_max/min
- don't change freq in arm_cpufreq_exit, because every core share the same freq.
- use unsigned long describe frequency as much as possible. Because clk use
unsigned long, but cpufreq use unsigned int.
[PATCH V2 1/4] cpufreq: add arm soc generic cpufreq driver
[PATCH V2 2/4] dts/imx6q: add cpufreq property
[PATCH V2 3/4] arm/imx6q: register arm_clk as cpu to clkdev
[PATCH V2 4/4] arm/imx6q: select ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ
Thanks
Richard
I had my "Binary Blobs Attack!!!" BoF session accepted at ELC this year:
Most SoC vendors distribute binary blobs with Linux kernel shims.
These binary blobs enable graphics engines, DSPs and other cores on
ARM and other architecture SoCs. These binary blobs tend to be tied to
specific kernel versions which limits unreadability and hackability
and complicates device manufactures, which slows down innovation and
the introduction of new and unique computing devices. This BoF is
aimed at trying to improve this situation with pragmatic steps.
Anyone interested in discussing their experience with binary blob
integration, ideas for making this easier to deal with across
architectures, ways to encourage openness while allowing vendor
differentiation and others interested in a constructive dialog should
attend.
I was wanted to get some feedback from people about their own binary
blob experiences. I think this will be a good place to have a good
productive conversation about this critical issue.
This is ELC so We'll want to cover issues that affect all Linux distros.
--
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
Hello!
Status dashboard has the details in
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Middleware/Multimedia/WeeklyReport
Last weekly meeting:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Middleware/Multimedia/Notes/2012-01-03
Highlights
- Coming back from vacation
- Wiki page for libjpeg-turbo integration in skia and skia_test usage
for jpeg performance test was created
- Created a parser for the test definition of Speex
- Provided some help to get smoother video playing on xbmc for Ubuntu
leb on Panda
- live-build a40 should be ready to roll, not able to connect with infra
to do the update over the break
Issues
- Bug #893402 is impeding progress in end-to-end audio testing (only a
prototype is available for desktop - pandaboard is not functional).
Risks
-UCM for Android will be split to cover the different parts of the work
- some of the work will be done till LCQ1.12 but the work will be
completed after Connect
Next steps
- Proceed with the release tasks for 12.01. Continue planning for
Connect - see the preliminary MMWG plan for LCQ1.12 at
https://wiki.linaro.org/TomGall/DraftPlan/2012Plan#anchor-1q12lc
Questions/comments?
Many thanks,
--
Ilias Biris ilias.biris(a)linaro.org
Project Manager, Linaro
M: +358504839608, IRC: ibiris Skype: ilias_biris
Linaro.org│ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Hi Paul,
On 17/01/12 12:31, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Hello Guilherme,
>
> Here's the matter about "WI" we have from the team meeting. I posted
> about that matter previously but here's quick recap: we wanted to
> start using the copy-to-slave on android-build, and I found that it has
> security hole, essentially it allows a user w/o admin permissions to
> get access to admin info, which can be as serious as to allow to steal
> EC2 machine time.
>
> What I did is notified the plugin maintainer, and also quickly whipped
> a "short-circuit" type workaround - I just removed the offending option
> altogether. In maintainer's place, I wouldn't accept that patch as is -
> obviously, is some configurations there's no real security risk with
> that option, and some people have it in use. Proper solution would take
> adding UI configuration page, but I don't know Jenkisn well enough to
> do that (and before going for that, there're 2-3 Jenkins hacking
> related tasks waiting in queue for months). Last step in this so far is
> that maintainer did some changes (again, I doubt they're based on my
> patch much) and asked for review, in my TODO.
>
> We didn't really exchange email, all communication is as the comments
> to the plugin page:
>
> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Copy+To+Slave+Plugin?focusedCom…
>
> There's also a bug: https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-12281
>
> My changes are in the form of fork repo:
> https://github.com/pfalcon/copy-to-slave-plugin
>
>
> So, based on all this, I wouldn't think there's something to
> patch-track: it's not that much of upstream contribution, more of
> upstream bugreport + local workaround. But if you think we could track
> anything out of this, I'd appreciate a hint how to start with that.
Right, it probably doesn't make sense to teach patches.l.o how to suck
patches submitted by Linaro engineers from issues.jenkins-ci.org as we
don't expect to see many contributions from Linaro there. If that
changes in the future, we can certainly work something out, like we did
for gerrit.
The way you described it sounds like the patch you submitted isn't even
going to be merged upstream, but if you have others that you expect to
be, you can just email a copy of them to patches(a)l.o, as described at
https://wiki.linaro.org/Process/UpstreamPatches
In that case you'll also want to ask for the creation of a new project
on patches.l.o (instructions also on the page above)
--
Guilherme Salgado <https://launchpad.net/~salgado>
Hi there. I have a style question. For the pre-built versions of
gcc-linaro, should we release a i686 version that also runs on x86_64,
or do separate i686 and x86_64 builds?
If we do just an i686 version then:
* There's less to test
* There's one 'linux' binary so less confusion on what to download
and a simpler download page
* Most end users will already have the 32 bit libraries due to Skype or Flash
but it has some downsides:
* May not work 'out of the box'
* Cryptic failures if you don't have the 32 bit libraries installed
* Some users can't install extra packages and may not be allowed the
32 bit libraries
There's no real performance or compatibility advantage in also having
an x86_64 build.
Any thoughts? I quite like having an i686 only build but am worried
about the initial experience.
-- Michael
Hello,
Recently we are make the dynamic linker support GNU-style hash, but
for the compatible reason we build android with -Wl,--hash-style=both
instead of -Wl,--hash-style=gnu.
And then we discover this bug in gold, gold generate broken sysv-style
hash table when --hash-style=both, we already file a bug to bugzilla
for bintuils[1].
[1] http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13597
From: "Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu)" <paul.liu(a)linaro.org>
Hi,
This patch adds da9053 init for Freescale QuickStart Loco board.
DA9053 is a MFD device. On QuickStart Loco board we are using the regulators
provided by it.
Please help us to review this patch.
Many Thanks.
Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu) (1):
mx53_loco: add DA9053 PMIC support
arch/arm/mach-mx5/board-mx53_loco.c | 128 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/irqs.h | 10 +++-
2 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
--
1.7.8.3