Thanks for your input.
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Tim Gardner wrote:
> On 09/02/2010 09:45 PM, John Rigby wrote:
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> Building the three flavours of the linux-linaro kernel package
>> currently takes over eleven hours. To improve that situation in the
>> long term there are ide
On 09/02/2010 09:45 PM, John Rigby wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Building the three flavours of the linux-linaro kernel package
> currently takes over eleven hours. To improve that situation in the
> long term there are ideas about cross compiling in the build farm but
> that is still in the future. In the s
Tim,
Building the three flavours of the linux-linaro kernel package
currently takes over eleven hours. To improve that situation in the
long term there are ideas about cross compiling in the build farm but
that is still in the future. In the short term we would like to have
multiple source packa
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010, Mariano Alvira wrote:
> Now, with 4.4 and 4.5, I'm having the following build problem:
[...]
>See for instructions.
Ah that's interesting; which exact compiler are you using? Could you
provide a minimal test case we could reproduce this bug with?
--
Loïc Minier
___
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010, Jon Smirl wrote:
> What I'd like to do is install a pre-built cross tools chain (x86 to
> ARM) that works with the common CPU archs. Currently I am working with
> v4t, 926, ARM11, etc. Right now I have to have a separate build
> environment for every dev system I am using. Som
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 05:56:49PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Obviously there has to be a middle ground. We're building the binary
> packages for the configuration Dave mentioned (v7A/Neon), but IMHO
> that shouldn't prevent anyone from rebuilding it with our tool chain
> without having to make
+++ Jon Smirl [2010-09-02 13:17 -0400]:
> As an embedded developer I'd like to see a standardized tool chain for
> building on most ARM architectures. There are at least two groups of
> users for this tool chain - ARM based PCs and embedded systems. There
> are dozens are various tool chain build s
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 03:30:31PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
>
> Mar, how are you getting this? Maybe there is a simple solution to
> calling the ROM thumb code that we haven't discovered yet.
>
Right now I'm thinking that I have callee-super in there as a
hold-over from back when I first was star
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Jon Smirl wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
>>> [ un-breaking Loic email address in CC so people reply to the right
>>> place--- not sure what happened there ]
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2010, Jon Smirl wrote:
>> As an embedded developer I'd like to see a standardized tool chain for
>> building on most ARM architectures. There are at least two groups of
>> users for this tool chain - ARM based PCs and embedded sy
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010, Jon Smirl wrote:
> As an embedded developer I'd like to see a standardized tool chain for
> building on most ARM architectures. There are at least two groups of
> users for this tool chain - ARM based PCs and embedded systems. There
> are dozens are various tool chain build sy
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
>> [ un-breaking Loic email address in CC so people reply to the right
>> place--- not sure what happened there ]
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010
Hi,
I am curious to know a bit more about one of the points mentioned
below. Hope this is okay.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> * ACTION: Amit K to talk to jeremy about power domain framework: DONE
> * Jeremy needs help, will revisit in a few weeks
Is there some det
Amit Kucheria writes:
> On 10 Aug 27, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> vishwanath.sripa...@linaro.org writes:
>>
>> > From: Vishwanath BS
>> >
>> > This patch has instrumentation code for measuring latencies for
>> > various CPUIdle C states for OMAP. Idea here is to capture the
>> > timestamp at various
Agree, whilst v7A is our priority, we need to 'do the right thing' for everyone
Save
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Sep 2010, at 18:17, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Wednesday 01 September 2010, Michael Hope wrote:
>>
>>> We will try to do no harm t
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 September 2010, Michael Hope wrote:
>
>> We will try to do no harm to other architectures or earlier ARM
>> versions. The Thumb-2 routines may be applicable to the Cortex-M and
>> Cortex-R series but we will not optimise for
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
> [ un-breaking Loic email address in CC so people reply to the right
> place--- not sure what happened there ]
>
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Wednesday 01 September 2010, Michael Hope wrote:
> We will try to do no harm to other architectures or earlier ARM
> versions. The Thumb-2 routines may be applicable to the Cortex-M and
> Cortex-R series but we will not optimise for them.
>
> I'd like Linaro to state this explicitly in the ne
On 10 Sep 02, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>
> Instead of having this empty mx51_neon_fixup() in the #else part...
>
> > @@ -98,3 +120,4 @@ static int __init post_cpu_init(void)
> > }
> >
> > postcore_initcall(post_cpu_init);
> > +late_initcall(mx51_neon_fix
The weekly report for the Linaro Infrastructure team may be found at:
Status
report:https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Infrastructure/Status/2010-08-26
Burndown
chart:http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/maverick/linaro-infrastructure.html
The burndown chart is showing that reasonable p
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On 10 Sep 01, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> >
> > > On 10 Sep 01, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -284,6 +292,7 @@ MACHINE_START(MX51_BABBAGE, "Freescale MX51 Babbage
> > > Board")
> > > .phys_io = MX
Hi,
Another month, another release. Today sees the launch of the Linaro
Beta image which will in-turn become the final release in November.
The team have been working super-hard to ensure bugs are at a
minimum whist bring in new exciting functionality.
Highlights of this release include:
* Supp
Hi Amit, Santosh,
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh
wrote:
...
>> > The point is to keep the minimum possible in the kernel: just the
>> > tracepoints we're interested in. The rest (calculations, averages,
>> > analysis, etc.) does not need to be in the kernel and can be done
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> I guess I should get the board file for the efikamx done quickly. I'm
> told it is similar (identical?) to the pegatron nettops.
Yeah, if you look at the debug cable, it says lange 5.x :-)
--
Loïc Minier
Hi,
> The Babbage 2.0 _might_ work. Nobody has tried it yet.
>
> I guess I should get the board file for the efikamx done quickly. I'm
> told it is similar (identical?) to the pegatron nettops.
That was my understanding too, though I haven't got my hands on one to compare.
It would be good to ha
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Bryan Wu wrote:
>> Nico and Amit,
>>
>> Thanks for this quickly solution. I believe it is much better than my
>> dirty hack in our Ubuntu Lucid kernel and it's good for upstream to
>> me.
>>
>> My TO2 BB2.5 boar
[ un-breaking Loic email address in CC so people reply to the right
place--- not sure what happened there ]
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -g -DDEBUG -Os -fno-strict-aliasing
>
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
>
>>
>> > arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -g -DDEBUG -Os -fno-strict-aliasing
>> > -fno-common -ffixed-r8 -ffunction-sections -msoft-float -Wcast-align
>> > -Wall -D__KERNEL__ -DTEXT_BASE= -fno-builtin -ffreestanding -isystem
>> > /usr/lib/gcc/arm
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Bryan Wu wrote:
> Nico and Amit,
>
> Thanks for this quickly solution. I believe it is much better than my
> dirty hack in our Ubuntu Lucid kernel and it's good for upstream to
> me.
>
> My TO2 BB2.5 board is bricked, so maybe we need other folks with the
> hardware
>
> > arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -g -DDEBUG -Os -fno-strict-aliasing
> > -fno-common -ffixed-r8 -ffunction-sections -msoft-float -Wcast-align
> > -Wall -D__KERNEL__ -DTEXT_BASE= -fno-builtin -ffreestanding -isystem
> > /usr/lib/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabi/4.5.1/include -pipe -march=armv4t
> > -mlong-calls
> -Original Message-
> From: linaro-dev-boun...@lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-dev-
> boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Amit Kucheria
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 1:26 PM
> To: Kevin Hilman
> Cc: linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org; linux-o...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] OM
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010, Jon Smirl wrote:
> The toolchain isn't built with -mcallee-super-interworking enabled.
> Could we get that turned on? It is needed to make calls to thumb code
> in ROM.
Sounds like an extra header on all functions for which we'd pay a size
price, while the current maverick
Nico and Amit,
Thanks for this quickly solution. I believe it is much better than my
dirty hack in our Ubuntu Lucid kernel and it's good for upstream to
me.
My TO2 BB2.5 board is bricked, so maybe we need other folks with the
hardware for testing.
Thanks,
-Bryan
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:12 AM,
On 10 Aug 27, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> vishwanath.sripa...@linaro.org writes:
>
> > From: Vishwanath BS
> >
> > This patch has instrumentation code for measuring latencies for
> > various CPUIdle C states for OMAP. Idea here is to capture the
> > timestamp at various phases of CPU Idle and then comp
34 matches
Mail list logo
