Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] clk: Add simple gated clock

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 03:26:59PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote: > From: Jeremy Kerr > > Signed-off-by: Jeremy Kerr > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown > Signed-off-by: Jamie Iles > Signed-off-by: Mike Turquette > --- > Changes since v1: > Add copyright header > Fold in Jamie's patch for set-to-disabl

Re: Process - How to release Linaro components

Thanks Michael. I added the toolchain process to the links section. On 12 October 2011 05:01, Michael Hope wrote: > For reference, here are the toolchain processes: >  https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/GCC/ReleaseProcess >  https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/GDB/Release

Re: [PATCH 01/11] MFD: DA9052/53 MFD core module v6

(2011年09月19日 20:32), ashishj3 wrote: > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9052-i2c.c > @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ > +/* > + * I2C access for DA9052 PMICs. > + * > + * Copyright(c) 2011 Dialog Semiconductor Ltd. > + * > + * Author: David Dajun Chen > + * > + * This program is free software; you can redistr

Re: Easy crossbuilding of package sets/images

+++ Michael Hope [2011-10-12 09:17 +1300]: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Wookey wrote: > > One output from the 11.09 release was a reasonably painless way of > > cross-building whole images against an archive, which also forms the > > basis for an auto-crossbuilder. > > Ongoing work > > --

Re: 11.10 image changes

Hi Anmar, On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:54 PM, anmar.ou...@linaro.org wrote: > On 11 October 2011 13:08, Tom Gall wrote: >> All, >> >> Our oneiric based images and hwpacks are shaping up in advance of the >> 11.10 based release. Already you can download from >> http://snapshots.linaro.org/oneiric. >

Re: 11.10 image changes

On 11 October 2011 13:08, Tom Gall wrote: > All, > > Our oneiric based images and hwpacks are shaping up in advance of the > 11.10 based release. Already you can download from > http://snapshots.linaro.org/oneiric. > > Some important things you'll want to be aware of. > > We'll be upgrading the ve

Re: Easy crossbuilding of package sets/images

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Wookey wrote: > One output from the 11.09 release was a reasonably painless way of > cross-building whole images against an archive, which also forms the > basis for an auto-crossbuilder. > > There is a HOWTO (for building linaro-nano images) here: > https://wiki.l

Re: 11.10 image changes

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Alexander Sack wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Tom Gall wrote: >> >> The change in format of the tarball also means that the rootfs >> tarballs will appear to be larger. Don't panic. Once installed with >> linaro-media-create the installed image sizes a

Re: 11.10 image changes

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Tom Gall wrote: > The change in format of the tarball also means that the rootfs > tarballs will appear to be larger. Don't panic. Once installed with > linaro-media-create the installed image sizes are close to what they > were in natty. The reason for the extra

11.10 image changes

All, Our oneiric based images and hwpacks are shaping up in advance of the 11.10 based release. Already you can download from http://snapshots.linaro.org/oneiric. Some important things you'll want to be aware of. We'll be upgrading the version of live-build that we use to generate our images ver

Re: sched: ARM: arch_scale_freq_power

On 11 October 2011 12:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 11:40 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 11 October 2011 11:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 10:51 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> >> I have several goals. The 1st one is that I need to put more load on

Re: iPhone 4S Preliminary Benchmarks - Very impressive

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Eric Miao wrote: > http://www.anandtech.com/show/4951/iphone-4s-preliminary-benchmarks-800mhz-a > > Apple's hardware doesn't look like to have very high spec, however, the > results are a bit impressive, does that necessarily mean there is a big > gap in software o

iPhone 4S Preliminary Benchmarks - Very impressive

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4951/iphone-4s-preliminary-benchmarks-800mhz-a Apple's hardware doesn't look like to have very high spec, however, the results are a bit impressive, does that necessarily mean there is a big gap in software optimization? - eric __

Re: Linaro CI hwpack name improvements

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > > Also, what timezone is used to determine the date and time? I think we > should use UTC, not any local timezone. > > agreed on the UTC time. -- Alexander Sack Technical Director, Linaro Platform Teams http://www.linaro.org | Open source

Re: Linaro CI hwpack name improvements

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:57:53PM +0530, Deepti Kalakeri wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Alexander Sack wrote: [...] > > Example: > > > > http://ci.linaro.org/kernel_hwpack/linux-next_beagle-omap2plus

Re: Linaro CI hwpack name improvements

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Alexander Sack wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > >> For convenience only, we can put the job name and build ID into the >> > URL and/or the hwpack filename, and possibly in the hwpack metadata, >> but it's important to remember that th

Easy crossbuilding of package sets/images

One output from the 11.09 release was a reasonably painless way of cross-building whole images against an archive, which also forms the basis for an auto-crossbuilder. There is a HOWTO (for building linaro-nano images) here: https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/DevPlatform/CrossCompile/CrossBuildNano

Re: Proposal of tagging rules for Freescale bugs

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Fathi Boudra wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On 11 October 2011 13:02, Eric Miao wrote: >> All, >> >> Along with more bugs filed against Freescale kernels, I'd propose that we >> use a consistent tagging rule as below (Freescale internally is using more >> non-"i" prefixed

Re: Linaro CI hwpack name improvements

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > For convenience only, we can put the job name and build ID into the > URL and/or the hwpack filename, and possibly in the hwpack metadata, > but it's important to remember that this is only a convenience and is > not the authoritative source o

Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] clk: Implement clk_set_rate

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 03:26:57PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote: > From: Jeremy Kerr > > Implement clk_set_rate by adding a set_rate callback to clk_hw_ops. > Rates are propagated down the clock tree and recalculated. Also adds a > flag for signaling that parents must change rates to achieve the

Re: sched: ARM: arch_scale_freq_power

On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 11:40 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 11 October 2011 11:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 10:51 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > >> I have several goals. The 1st one is that I need to put more load on > >> some cpus when I have packages with different cpu

Re: sched: ARM: arch_scale_freq_power

On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 10:51 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > I have several goals. The 1st one is that I need to put more load on > some cpus when I have packages with different cpu frequency. That should be rather easy. > I also study if I can follow the real cpu frequency but it seems to be > no

Re: sched: ARM: arch_scale_freq_power

On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 12:46 +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote: > Adding Peter to the discussion.. Right, CCing the folks who actually wrote the code you're asking questions about always helps ;-) > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Vincent Guittot > wrote: > > I work to link the cpu_power of ARM cores to

Re: sched: ARM: arch_scale_freq_power

On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 15:08 +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote: > > That shouldn't be done using cpu_power, we have sched_smt_power_savings > > and sched_mc_power_savings for stuff like that. > > AFAICT, sched_mc assume all cores to have the same capacity - which is > certainly true of the x86 architectu

Re: Proposal of tagging rules for Freescale bugs

Hi Eric, On 11 October 2011 13:02, Eric Miao wrote: > All, > > Along with more bugs filed against Freescale kernels, I'd propose that we > use a consistent tagging rule as below (Freescale internally is using more > non-"i" prefixed version, so we're following): > >  mx51 - for i.MX51 specific bu

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] clk: Add a generic clock infrastructure

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 03:26:56PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote: > From: Jeremy Kerr > > We currently have ~21 definitions of struct clk in the ARM architecture, > each defined on a per-platform basis. This makes it difficult to define > platform- (or architecture-) independent clock sources witho

Proposal of tagging rules for Freescale bugs

All, Along with more bugs filed against Freescale kernels, I'd propose that we use a consistent tagging rule as below (Freescale internally is using more non-"i" prefixed version, so we're following): mx51 - for i.MX51 specific bugs mx53 - for i.MX53 specific bugs mx6 - for i.MX6DQ and othe

Re: sched: ARM: arch_scale_freq_power

On 11 October 2011 11:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 10:51 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> I have several goals. The 1st one is that I need to put more load on >> some cpus when I have packages with different cpu frequency. > > That should be rather easy. > I agree, I was main

Re: sched: ARM: arch_scale_freq_power

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 10:51 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> I have several goals. The 1st one is that I need to put more load on >> some cpus when I have packages with different cpu frequency. > > That should be rather easy. > >> I also stu

Re: sched: ARM: arch_scale_freq_power

On 11 October 2011 09:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 12:46 +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote: >> Adding Peter to the discussion.. > > Right, CCing the folks who actually wrote the code you're asking > questions about always helps ;-) > >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Vincent Guittot

[ACTIVITY] OCTO status report - wk40 (20111003-20111007)

Complete status report is in : https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/WeeklyReport Last meeting minutes: https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/2011-10-04 == Highlights == Please see the status report for more details. * ARMHF: Benchmarking activity is going smoothly now. On the package porting side

Re: sched: ARM: arch_scale_freq_power

Adding Peter to the discussion.. On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote: > I work to link the cpu_power of ARM cores to their frequency by using > arch_scale_freq_power. It's explained in the kernel that cpu_power is > used to distribute load on cpus and a cpu with more cpu_power w