Re: [PATCH] cpufreq for freescale mx51

2010-10-05 Thread Yong Shen
Hi Arnd, Really appreciate your valuable comments. Most of them are accepted. I have different option about two comments. 1. > It would be better to make this code a proper device driver, > probably a platform_driver unless you have a way to probe > the presence of the registers on another bus. >

linaro-media-create speedup

2010-10-05 Thread Tom Gall
Greets, As a side project I've created a fairly simple performance improvement for the linaro-media-create tool. Basically the copying of the root_fs happens earlier in the process such that hwpack and a number of other steps are done in parallel and then at the end there's one last rsync to make

Re: [Patch] Add imx51 support into linaro-media-create

2010-10-05 Thread Shawn Guo
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Loïc Minier wrote: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010, Loïc Minier wrote: >>                                  I added a non-FS data partition in the >>  bzr version now, and factored your code with the general case. > >  Hmm I'll have to disable that on OMAP, otherwise u-boot

Re: [Patch] Add imx51 support into linaro-media-create

2010-10-05 Thread Shawn Guo
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Loïc Minier wrote: >> >> +      cat > ${TMP_DIR}/boot.cmd << BOOTCMD >> >> +setenv bootcmd 'fatload mmc 0:1 0x9000 uImage; fatload mmc 0:1 >> >> 0x9080 uInitrd; bootm 0x9000 0x9080' >> > >> >  no mmc init? >> > >> This is something I'm not very clea

Re: Weekly Linaro image testing

2010-10-05 Thread Shawn Guo
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Jamie Bennett wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 06:50:03PM -0300, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 11:28:26AM +0100, Jamie Bennett wrote: >> > OK, I put together: >> > >> >   http://wiki.linaro.org/Process/ReleaseTesting >> >> Could we add s

Re: the linaro toolchain and older arm versions

2010-10-05 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:23:01PM -0600, John Rigby wrote: > Thanks Michael. Just wanted to make sure I understood. The "do no > harm" goal and the Thumb2 libgcc seem to be somewhat contradictory > however. I realize that choices need to be made and only odd ducks > like me will likely run into

Re: the linaro toolchain and older arm versions

2010-10-05 Thread Michael Hope
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:23 AM, John Rigby wrote: > Thanks Michael.  Just wanted to make sure I understood.  The "do no > harm" goal and the Thumb2 libgcc seem to be somewhat contradictory > however.  I realize that choices need to be made and only odd ducks > like me will likely run into issues.

Re: the linaro toolchain and older arm versions

2010-10-05 Thread John Rigby
Thanks Michael. Just wanted to make sure I understood. The "do no harm" goal and the Thumb2 libgcc seem to be somewhat contradictory however. I realize that choices need to be made and only odd ducks like me will likely run into issues. My particular case is wanting to build u-boot for old and

Re: the linaro toolchain and older arm versions

2010-10-05 Thread Michael Hope
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:44 AM, John Rigby wrote: > I believe that the libgcc.a in our toolchain contains Thumb-2 code.  I > verified this by doing objdump on libgcc.a and I see combinations of > 16 and 32 bit instructions.  So does that mean that the toolchain is > only usable for ARM versions t

the linaro toolchain and older arm versions

2010-10-05 Thread John Rigby
I believe that the libgcc.a in our toolchain contains Thumb-2 code. I verified this by doing objdump on libgcc.a and I see combinations of 16 and 32 bit instructions. So does that mean that the toolchain is only usable for ARM versions that support Thumb-2? Thanks, John

Re: Maverick packages patched to build with xdeb

2010-10-05 Thread Peter Pearse
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Alexander Sack wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Peter Pearse > wrote: > > [Any binaries produced will be amd64/i686 proving the host build is > > unbroken] > > > > Only tested to build with gcc-4.5-arm-linux-gnueabi && > >> xdeb -a armel --ap

Re: Maverick packages patched to build with xdeb

2010-10-05 Thread Alexander Sack
Hi Peter, On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Peter Pearse wrote: > [Any binaries produced will be amd64/i686 proving the host build is > unbroken] > > Only tested to build with gcc-4.5-arm-linux-gnueabi && >> xdeb -a armel --apt-source > > Resulting armel binaries not tested Is there a plan to make

Maverick packages patched to build with xdeb

2010-10-05 Thread Peter Pearse
Are available from https://launchpad.net/~peter-pearse/+archive/cross-source deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/peter-pearse/cross-source/ubuntu maverick main deb-src http://ppa.launchpad.net/peter-pearse/cross-source/ubuntu maverick main [Any binaries produced will be amd64/i686 proving the host buil

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq for freescale mx51

2010-10-05 Thread Arnd Bergmann
> From: Yong Shen > > it is tested on babbage 3.0 One big comment and a couple of smaller ones: It would be better to make this code a proper device driver, probably a platform_driver unless you have a way to probe the presence of the registers on another bus. Making it a driver that registers

[PATCH] cpufreq for freescale mx51

2010-10-05 Thread yong . shen
From: Yong Shen it is tested on babbage 3.0 Signed-off-by: Yong Shen --- arch/arm/Kconfig |6 + arch/arm/mach-mx5/Kconfig |1 + arch/arm/mach-mx5/Makefile |2 +- arch/arm/mach-mx5/board-mx51_babbage.c |7 +- arch/arm/mach-mx5/clock

mx51 cpufreq driver

2010-10-05 Thread yong . shen
mx51 cpufreq driver, it passed test on mx51 babbage 3.0 board. ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev