Hi
please below the summary of the work in Multimedia WG for wk02.2012. The
detailed report (with links) is in
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Middleware/Multimedia/WeeklyReport
Last meeting minutes are in:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Middleware/Multimedia/Notes/2012-01-10
Achievements
- libjpeg-turbo: updated android code to latest, tjunittest (1 failure),
tjbench, skia-bench. skia-bench not great, new blueprint created to
address (565 and 8888 unoptimized), looking at past qualcomm code.
- linarotv-xbmc live-config building successful. bp complete.
- For DRM : moved to 12.04 / armhf fs, rebuild xserver 1.12 RC1 and
related trees rebase and resubmitted final version of few omapdrm
patches for api changes coming in through drm-next (drmplane/addfb2) and
fbdev-next (omapdss fifomerge api changes)
- Added ucm configs for mx53 HDMI card, added channels and priority
properties in ucm4pa code. Also added priority to ucm config for mx53 to
make analog jack the default sink
- CMA LAVA test running - but also needs to be split into multiple
shorter tests, as it runs out of time
- Porting capture to tinyalsa for e2e audio test support
- Created a git repo for the Speex release for Android
(speex_linaro_android.git under ronynandy in git.linaro.org - there is a
problem preventing it to show properly in gitweb - not being solved by IS)
Issues
- Bug #893402
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/linaro-landing-team-ti/+bug/893402) is
impeding progress in end-to-end audio testing (only a prototype is
available for desktop - pandaboard is not functional). We're working on
the bug, the focus has passed to alsa-lib, pulseaudio and the UCM configs
- #911860 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/911860) Android NEON
detection is busticated - working on it now
- #912035 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/912035) Android: skia-bench
segvs - Fix Committed
- #898395 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/898395) jpegint.h missing in
-dev package - Fix Committed
Risks:
Codec optimisation work: we have 3 blueprints in 12.01 for codecs
optimisation, and we are checking if there will be some which will come
after 12.01
Best regards,
--
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,
I'd like to do some tests with cpuidle on my panda board but i'm
facing some issues:
Originally, i'd like to use the Linaro developer image which uses the
landing team branch tilt-linux-linaro-3.1 but the omap4 cpuidle driver
only works when cpu1 is off whereas i'd like to do some test with both
cpus.
The android kernel has got a cpuidle driver which can enter C-states
when both cpus are running and I was wondering if there is a plan to
merge this driver into the tilt-linux-linaro-x.x branch ? maybe in 3.2
?
Then, when I'm testing the landing-panda-11.12-release android image
on my panda board revA1, the cpuidle is using only C0 state (WFI)
according to cpuidle stats.
My test sequence:
prevent suspend with: echo qwerty > /sys/power/wake_lock
let android enter the early_suspend mode
get cpuidle statistics on cpu0 et cpu1 in cpuidle/stateX/time : only
state0 time is different from 0
Is it a normal behavior ?
Regards,
Vincent
From: Mike Turquette <mturquette(a)ti.com>
The common clk framework is an attempt to define a generic struct clk
which most platforms can use to build a clk tree and perform a set of
well-defined operations.
The previous patchset, v3, can be found at,
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1218622
New stuff in v4:
* clk rate change notifiers
* clk debug info via debugfs (instead of sysfs)
* lots of bug fixes
Stuff that is known to be missing in v4:
* basic mux and divider clk types
* fix for migrating clk_prepare_count/clk_enable_count in
clk_set_parent
* minor rework comments from v3
* Documentation/clk.txt needs love
All of the mising items above will be rolled into v5 ASAP. I wanted to
go ahead and push out the new notifier changes for review and gather
comments on those since those were a big gap in the v3 patchset.
Paul W. also had some good comments about the greater clk API, and the
opportunity to fix some of that stuff while this patchset is still under
discussion. I didn't address those here because they require more
thought, and more comments from reviewers.
Finally, OMAP4 support for the common struct clk will be posted
immediately after this patch series to LAKML and LOML, along with some
hack patches that show how to use the recursive clk_set_rate for
propagating rate changes up the tree for CPUfreq and how to use the new
clk rate change notifiers in a driver.
Mike Turquette (6):
clk: Kconfig: add entry for HAVE_CLK_PREPARE
Documentation: common clk API
clk: introduce the common clock framework
clk: introduce rate change notifiers
clk: basic gateable and fixed-rate clks
clk: export the clk tree topology to debugfs
Documentation/clk.txt | 312 +++++++++++++++
drivers/clk/Kconfig | 23 ++
drivers/clk/Makefile | 4 +-
drivers/clk/clk-basic.c | 208 ++++++++++
drivers/clk/clk.c | 992 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/linux/clk.h | 230 +++++++++++-
6 files changed, 1765 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 Documentation/clk.txt
create mode 100644 drivers/clk/clk-basic.c
create mode 100644 drivers/clk/clk.c
--
1.7.5.4
Enclosed please find the link to the Weekly Status report & meeting
minutes
for the Power Management working group for the week ending 2012-01-13
== Weekly Status Report ==
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/PowerManagement/Status/2012-01-12
== Meeting Minutes ==
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/PowerManagement/Meetings/2012-01-11
== Summary ==
(For details, see the Weekly Status Report and Meeting Minutes )
* Scheduler mini-summit
* Setting for a scheduler mini-summit at Connet, Paul McKenney and
Vincent Guittot will moderate.
* Thermal Driver
* Rob submitted the thermal driver patch for i.MX6 Freescale. Based on
feedback, he will fix and make more extensive tests on the next submission.
* Amit Daniel working on use the temperature information in thermal
layer to generate some useful information like temperature drop per
cooling state. Amit has submitted proposal for thermal framework discussion
in ELC.
* Cpuidle
* Daniel is moving cpuilde drivers to drivers directory, he discussed
this with Russel and Arnd and agreed on how to do it.
* Current major area of work on cpuidle
* Moving all cpuidle drivers from sub-arch directory to driver
directory
* Cleaning up Arm cpuidle and make a generic common cpuidle driver
framework, so all platforms can use it.
* Rob/Daniel working on moving i.mx and st-e cpuidle drivers to use
the new common cpuidle.
Best regards,
Mounir
--
Mounir Bsaibes
Project Manager
Follow Linaro.org:
facebook.com/pages/Linaro/155974581091106http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorghttp://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog>
Enclosed please find the link to the Weekly Status & Individual Activity
reports
for the kernel working group for the week ending 2012-01-13
== Weekly Status Report ==
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Kernel/Status/2012-01-12
<https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Kernel/Status/2012-01-12>
== Individual Activity Report ==
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Kernel/ActivityReports/2012-01-06
<https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Kernel/ActivityReports/2012-01-06>
== Summary ==
(For more details, please see the Status report or the Individual Activity
report above)
* Sub-teams
The KWG has re-organized into sub-teams, links to the teams' pages
(which are still under construction)
can be reached from https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Kernel.
* Kernel Release
Andrey Konvalov is handling the Linaro baseline kernel release from now
on.
He has a tracking branch setup
(http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/ynk/linux-linaro-tracking.git)<about:blank>
that is currently on 3.2 and has a number of 3.3 patches he will be
merging for the 12.01 release
including updates to DT, sched_mc, and pinmux. Expect a kernel release
on Jan 19th.
* Pinctrl
* Linusw sent a pull request for the top of the pinctrl branch that has
matured in linux-next to Torvalds
* PXA is very mature and was merged on top of LinusW devel branch, but did
not make it into this merge window.
* Work on pinctrl binding to DT is progressing, extensive discussions on
how to add DT binding for pinctrl drivers.
* Device Tree
* Submitted patch for a new lcd power control driver with device tree
support.
* Submitted device tree support patch for generic power domains.
* Submitted device tree support patch for Samsung display controller.
* Reviewed imx pinctrl patch series from Aisheng, and had some extensive
discussion on
how we should add DT binding for pinctrl drivers.
* Android
* Planning to submit patch queue that adds an android alarmtimer driver,
which is
mended to use the upstreamed alarmtimer code, to staging,
* Submitted talk on Android kernel patch status for ELC
* Sent a few iterations of the patches to evdev to allow monotonic
timestamps to be used (required for ICS).
* imx maintenance
* Collected a number of imx tty/serial patches and sent them to Greg for
3.3 merge window.
* Collected a couple of imx6 PM fixup patches from Eric Miao
* Reviewed a number of imx6 related patches
* Sent the clk-prepare series to fix mutex locking issue while moving,
one step towards common-clk frame work
* Sent a patch to use CHIPID register to detect soc between imx23 andimx28
* Tested the patch from Fabio Estevam adding audio support intomxs_defconfig
Best regards,
Mounir
--
Mounir Bsaibes
Project Manager
Follow Linaro.org:
facebook.com/pages/Linaro/155974581091106http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorghttp://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog>
Hi Amit,
I used linaro powertop to check idle state on embedded board
with EXYNOS4 series. I modified Makefile to use -lncurse
instead of -lncursew and it was well operated on my board.
- kernel : 2.6.36
- libncurse : libncurses5-dev
But, same powertop binary doesn't work on new embedded board.
When execute powertop, I faced one problem which stop powertop
during initialization of ncurse in display.cpp. (init_display function)
- kernel : 3.0
- libncurse : libncurses5-dev
Does anyone have experience about it?
Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Hi Ryan,
I'm replying with a copy to linaro-dev@ as I believe adding support to
UEFI into l-m-c will require a new hwpack format, which is something
that needs discussion with a wider audience.
On 11/01/12 13:51, Ryan Harkin wrote:
> Hi Danilo,
>
> Ok, as we agreed, I've had a hack at the l-m-c script to produce an
> image with UEFI instead of (or as well as) U-Boot.
>
> I've attached a diff for the changes I made.
>
> As I have no prior experience with this script, my changes are purely
> for "demo" purposes. You're allowed to laugh at my basic perl
> skills ;-)
I hope you meant Python? Or did you include some perl code here as well? ;)
> The changes are "generic", i.e. don't take into account that platforms
> like Snowball have special "magic" for U-Boot and will probably need
> special magic for UEFI. I expect "someone" will make those changes
> whenever UEFI is developed for such platforms.
Is it implemented for any of our supported platforms already? If not,
do you have any idea when that might happen?
> Also, the attached diff is only for hacking l-m-c. I haven't done
> android-l-m-c, although I expect it's similar. And I haven't touched
> the hwpack creation scripts so far.
I'm writing this before I've gone through the diff, but I'd expect the
hwpacks would have to grow some config options for that, which means a
new hwpack format. If that's the case, we'll need to invite more people
into the discussion and probably agree on what the new hwpack should
look like before we change l-m-c. Sounds like a good candidate for a
Connect session. :)
>
> So, what have I done? Quite simple, really: I've added a --bootloader
> option to linaro-media-create. The option takes the values: none,
> uboot, uefi or all. Default is "uboot" to mimic current behaviour.
>
> What is the desired behaviour of this option?
>
> none - no bootloader is copied to the disk image
> uboot - only U-Boot images are copied to the disk image
> uefi - only UEFI images are copied to the disk image
> all - all bootloaders in the hwpack are copied to the disk image
I'm wondering... do you have any use cases for the none and all options?
>
> If you specify a bootloader that doesn't exist in the hwpack, the script
> will fail horribly. This is like current behaviour: if uboot is not in
Right, but currently we know that the hwpacks for boards that use u-boot
will include the u-boot binary, whereas with your changes users will
have to first check that the bootloader they want is in the hwpack.
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to make hwpacks include just one
bootloader (whichever is chosen by the hwpack author)?
> the hwpack, l-m-c will fail. I think this is only a problem for the
> 'all' case. As a user, I'd expect the 'all' case to work if UEFI,
> U-Boot or both were missing. But I'm not sure how best to fix that.
>
> How did I test it?
>
> - un-tar an existing hwpack
> - add a 'uefi' directory with the files 'uefi.bin' and 'sec_uefi.bin'
> - edit 'metadata' to add the UEFI keys:
> UEFI=uefi/uefi.bin
> SEC_UEFI=uefi/sec_uefi.bin
> UEFI_IN_BOOT_PART=Yes
> - re-tar it as before.
> - run l-m-c
>
>
> What next? I'd like you to review my changes and see if they make
> sense. As mentioned earlier, I'd expect you to have a lot of criticisms
> about the way I've implemented it, but I hope my example can help you
> understand the direction I'd like the script to take.
Your implementation seems straightforward to me, but given what I said
above, I think there's not much point in discussing the implementation
in l-m-c before we have agreed on what the new hwpack format should look
like.
>
> Then, I need to work on the hwpack create scripts. I am a bit in the
> dark with this as I don't know enough about hwpack creation. I believe
> that to get the scripts to create a hwpack with UEFI inside, I am going
> to have to package UEFI somehow. This is the area that I am not
> familiar with: all of the packaging in the ARM LT has been done by
> either Ricardo or Tixy. So, any links, docs, or hints would be
> appreciated.
A hwpack is just a bunch of .deb packages, some board-specific configs
and the bootloader binary. In the case of UEFI, we'll probably only need
a binary file to copy to the boot partition, so in theory there's no
need for a .deb package. However, the hwpack creation script will need
to get that from somewhere and given it already knows where to get .debs
from, that might be easier. We do that for u-boot, but given its special
nature, it doesn't need to be in the rootfs, so we just extract the
actual bootloader from the .deb and put that in a fixed place for l-m-c
to find. I imagine we'd do something similar for UEFI.