linaro-dev May 2012

linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org

118 participants
90 discussions

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: S3C64xx: cpuidle cleanups

by Daniel Lezcano

These couple of patches use the new cpuidle core api to refactor some part of the code. The first one declares the states directly in the driver declaration and the second one use the timekeeping flag to let the cpuidle core to compute the idle time. I don't have this board, I was not able to test these patches. Daniel Lezcano (2): ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - declare the states with the new api ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - use timekeeping wrapper arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c | 45 +++++++++++++-------------------------- 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) -- 1.7.5.4

11 years, 11 months

Making ARM multiplatform kernels DT-only?

by Arnd Bergmann

Hi everyone, I've been discussing multiplatform kernels with a few people recently, and we will have a lot of discussion sessions about this at Linaro Connect in Hong Kong. One question that came up repeatedly is whether we should support all possible board files for each platform in a multiplatform kernel, or just the ones that are already using DT probing. I would like to get a quick poll of opinions on that and I've tried to put those people on Cc that would be most impacted by this, i.e. the maintainers for platforms that have both DT and non-DT board files at the moment. My feeling is that we should just mandate DT booting for multiplatform kernels, because it significantly reduces the combinatorial space at compile time, avoids a lot of legacy board files that we cannot test anyway, reduces the total kernel size and gives an incentive for people to move forward to DT with their existing boards. The counterargument is that we won't be able to support all the boards we currently do when the user switches on multiplatform, but I think that is acceptable. Note that I would still want to allow users to build platforms separately in order to enable the ATAG style board files, even for platforms that are not multiplatform capable. Other opinions? Arnd

11 years, 11 months

android-build's are failing, we're on it...

by Zach Pfeffer

-- Zach Pfeffer Android Platform Team Lead, Linaro Platform Teams 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

11 years, 11 months

[PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: PD: Fix duplicate variable

by Sangwook Lee

struct generic_pm_domain already has a field for name. Use that field instead of creating another field in struct exynos_pm_domain Signed-off-by: Sangwook Lee <sangwook.lee(a)linaro.org> --- arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm_domains.c | 7 +++---- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm_domains.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm_domains.c index 13b3068..4d2563c 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm_domains.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm_domains.c @@ -28,7 +28,6 @@ */ struct exynos_pm_domain { void __iomem *base; - char const *name; bool is_off; struct generic_pm_domain pd; }; @@ -75,10 +74,10 @@ static int exynos_pd_power_off(struct generic_pm_domain *domain) #define EXYNOS_GPD(PD, BASE, NAME) \ static struct exynos_pm_domain PD = { \ .base = (void __iomem *)BASE, \ - .name = NAME, \ .pd = { \ .power_off = exynos_pd_power_off, \ .power_on = exynos_pd_power_on, \ + .name = NAME, \ }, \ } @@ -99,7 +98,7 @@ static __init int exynos_pm_dt_parse_domains(void) if (of_get_property(np, "samsung,exynos4210-pd-off", NULL)) pd->is_off = true; - pd->name = np->name; + pd->pd.name = (char *)np->name; pd->base = of_iomap(np, 0); pd->pd.power_off = exynos_pd_power_off; pd->pd.power_on = exynos_pd_power_on; @@ -122,7 +121,7 @@ static __init void exynos_pm_add_dev_to_genpd(struct platform_device *pdev, if (pm_genpd_add_device(&pd->pd, &pdev->dev)) pr_info("%s: error in adding %s device to %s power" "domain\n", __func__, dev_name(&pdev->dev), - pd->name); + pd->pd.name); } } -- 1.7.4.1

11 years, 11 months

What is right git tree/ branch for imx28/evk device tree work?

by Subodh Nijsure

Sounds like a very basic question, I would like to test some of the recent patches related to mx28 for freescale EVK board. ( Some thing like - https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/13/176 ) Is there specific branch one should be looking for in git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm/arm-soc.git? Or these changes are being staged some place other than arm-soc.git? Thanks for the help -Subodh P.S. I posting it linaro mailing list 'cause lot of this device-tree patches seem to be coming from folks with at-linaro.org email addresses.

11 years, 11 months

Off for a bit in 30 min...

by Zach Pfeffer

Hey team, I'll be offline until tonight in 30 minutes. If you've got anything urgent please let me know. -- Zach Pfeffer Android Platform Team Lead, Linaro Platform Teams 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

11 years, 11 months

new IRC channel: linaro-lava

by Andy Doan

We have a new channel on FreeNode for LAVA specific discussions: #linaro-lava This channel allows participants who are working with Linaro to join and just follow progress on LAVA. We should be using the same guidelines for deciding whether something belongs on #linaro or not as channels like #linaro-android currently do.

11 years, 11 months

[PATCH 0/5] more clk-next fixes

by Mike Turquette

Hi all, These five patches are hopefully the final set of core framework changes for 3.5. There is the obligatory MAINTAINERS file change, three new fixes and the fixed-factor clock patch. That last patch is being reposted since three bugs were found in it (one on the list, two in my testing). If no one complains about these then I'll commit them to clk-next and (finally) send my pull request to Arnd. Note that the Orion patches aren't here, but I figure that Andrew L. probably wants to check those against the final clk-next before I pull them. Regards, Mike Mike Turquette (4): MAINTAINERS: add entry for common clk framework clk: prevent spurious parent rate propagation clk: remove COMMON_CLK_DISABLE_UNUSED clk: mux: assign init data Sascha Hauer (1): clk: add a fixed factor clock MAINTAINERS | 10 ++++ drivers/clk/Kconfig | 11 ----- drivers/clk/Makefile | 2 +- drivers/clk/clk-fixed-factor.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/clk/clk-mux.c | 1 + drivers/clk/clk.c | 9 +++- include/linux/clk-private.h | 20 ++++++++ include/linux/clk-provider.h | 23 ++++++++++ 8 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) create mode 100644 drivers/clk/clk-fixed-factor.c -- 1.7.5.4

11 years, 11 months

PM-QA update

by Hongbo Zhang

Hi all, PM-QA is updated: 1. Removed obsolete test cases under pm-qa/tastcases 2. Thermal test scripts has been merged into, but is temporarily disabled form the top 'make check', while ‘make -C thermal check’ still works for this sub-test. 3. Temporarily disabled suspend function form top 'make check', this will be enabled after fully test on LEBs later, also 'make -C suspend check' is available. Any problems you found please let me know, thanks.

11 years, 11 months

Installing the armel libc on armhf

by Michael Hope

Hi there. Hopefully an easy question but I'm stumped. How do I install the armel softfp libc6 on a new Precise armhf install? I set APT::Architectures to { "armel" } and then tried a apt-get install libc6:armel but I get errors about the package not matching the host architecture. -- Michael

11 years, 11 months

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-dev May 2012