On 30 March 2011 01:45, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I don't think this is a correct interpretation of the license. You don't
> have to change a package name to "plainly mark" the source as modified;
> debian/copyright, changelogs, notices in the source files accomplish this.
> This is done for packag
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:07:05AM +0300, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> On 29 March 2011 10:53, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Hi Konstantinos,
> > There must be some misunderstanding here; no license that prohibited
> > distribution of binaries built from modified source would be considered a
> >
Hi,
In preparation for the release of Linaro 11.05 Beta images on Thursday a
suitable candidate has been selected for testing. If you have supported
hardware, as found on:
http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/hwpacks/beta/
please help our initiative by testing the official Linaro Evalu
Enclosed you'll find a link to the agenda, minutes, actions and IRC logs
from the
Linaro kernel working group weekly meetings of March 28, 2011.
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/KernelConsolidation/Meetings/2011-03-28
== Summary ==
* Nico will rebase linaro-2.6.38 the current linaro tree
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Vishwanath Sripathy wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Nicolas Pitre
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Vishwanath Sripathy wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Nicolas,
> >>
> >> Attached patch set has support for MPU DVFS (cpufreq) on OMAP4 and
> >> these are rebased against latest .3
Enclosed you'll find a link to the agenda, notes and actions from the
Linaro Developer Platforms Weekly Status meeting held on March 23rd
in #linaro-meeting on irc.freenode.net at 16:00 UTC.
http://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/DevPlatform/Meetings/2011-03-23
Actions from the meeting where as follows:
All,
the notes can be found here -
https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/2011-03-29
Dave
David Rusling, CTO
http://www.linaro.org
Linaro
Lockton House
Clarendon Rd
Cambridge
CB2 8FH
___
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
htt
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Vishwanath Sripathy wrote:
>
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>> Attached patch set has support for MPU DVFS (cpufreq) on OMAP4 and
>> these are rebased against latest .38 linaro kernel.
>> omap cpufreq driver changes are already posted
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Frederic Turgis
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
[..]
> I am in parallel seeking info on utrace-devel mailing list.
utrace-de...@redhat.com, is it?
Jason
>
> thanks for any help
>
>
> Regards
> Fred
>
> ___
> linaro-dev mailing list
Hi all,
In the scope of my work on systemtap, I would like to have a look to
its user-space instrumentation capabilities. Systemtap relies on
uprobes+utrace for that purpose so has anyone some feedback/global
view on these with regards to ARM ?
utrace did not make it into the mainline and would n
Hi, Grant,
The two patches for mx51/mx53 DT support have the same issue, which
is the S-O-B will be missed when you git am. Let me know if you want me
re-send the two patches or you would take care when you am it? Thanks,
Best Regards,
Jason Liu
>-Original Message-
>From: linaro-dev-bou
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 03:25:16AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>
[...]
> - Add packaging of .dtb files into linux-image-linaro-* packages.
> Loic and I discussed putting them under /lib/dtb/`uname -r`/, but
> thinking about it more, it might make more sense to share the modules
> directory and use
---
grant, uboot patches has been send to u-boot maillist
Test OK on mx53 loco board
Signed-off-by: Jason Liu
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/mx53-loco.dts | 30 ++
arch/arm/mach-mx5/Kconfig |1 +
arch/arm/mach-mx5/board-mx53_loco.c |5 +
3 files cha
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:07:05AM +0300, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> On 29 March 2011 10:53, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Hi Konstantinos,
>
> > There must be some misunderstanding here; no license that prohibited
> > distribution of binaries built from modified source would be considered a
>
On 29 March 2011 10:53, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Konstantinos,
> There must be some misunderstanding here; no license that prohibited
> distribution of binaries built from modified source would be considered a
> Free Software license, and zlib is certainly considered free. :)
Yes, you're right
Hi Konstantinos,
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:21:53AM +0300, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> On 28 March 2011 07:52, Jim Huang wrote:
> The problem is the zlib license, it forbids distributing compiled
> versions that are modified from the original source, such optimizations
> can go in the contr
On 28 March 2011 07:52, Jim Huang wrote:
> - zlib
> Using SIMD, we can optimize 'copy / repeat an existing sequence' in
> LZ-style encoding.
> The reference Intel SSE2 optimization patch is attached in this mail.
Regarding zlib in particular, in 2005 I had done an altivec port of this,
apart fr
---
No uboot patch since uboot patch already in linaro uboot git
Signed-off-by: Jason Liu
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/mx51-babbage.dts | 30 ++
arch/arm/mach-mx5/Kconfig |6 ++
arch/arm/mach-mx5/board-mx51_babbage.c |6 ++
3 files changed,
18 matches
Mail list logo
