On 16 September 2013 11:48, Riku Voipio wrote:
> Do we have a plan for adding gator to LSK now? I have a request to
> support gator on LSK based image, and I'd prefer not to add the module
> from outside the kernel.
>
No, there's a card in process but it's not been approved yet.
___
Hi,
On 5 August 2013 12:44, Mark Brown wrote:
> On 5 August 2013 10:11, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 16:43 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
>> > 5) Gator bits don't seem to be in there, presumably that's something
>> > ARM would like to see in there (it appears in llct)
>>
>> Yes,
On 08/08/2013 06:04 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 05:50:57PM +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
On 08/08/2013 05:30 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
Any great reason why not? It doesn't seem particularly controversial or
anything and definitely seems useful.
Just the patch author is not
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 05:50:57PM +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 05:30 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >Any great reason why not? It doesn't seem particularly controversial or
> >anything and definitely seems useful.
> Just the patch author is not with Linaro any more. So I am not very
On 08/08/2013 05:30 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 05:20:46PM +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
On 08/05/2013 11:34 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
These appear to be upstream anyway in one form or another.
"KBuild: Allow scripts/* to be cross compiled"
What's the upstreaming
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 05:20:46PM +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 11:34 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >These appear to be upstream anyway in one form or another.
> >>"KBuild: Allow scripts/* to be cross compiled"
> >What's the upstreaming status on this?
> Good question. There are
On 08/05/2013 11:34 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 11:23:19PM +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
# Misc fixes which don't belong to any particular topic:
ynk/llct-v3.10-misc-fixes
"Add cross-build support to tools/lib/lk library"
The 2nd chunk is still not in the mainline.
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 09:12:44PM +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> On 6 August 2013 20:47, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Please submit things normally - attachments are non-standard and
> > difficult to work with (both from the point of view of applying and from
> > the point of view of workflow) and if you d
On Aug 6, 2013 11:06 PM, "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 21:12 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> > On 6 August 2013 20:47, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:52AM +0800, Andy Green wrote:
>
> > >> 6) warning-elimination: nobody uses cci_pmu_destroy
> > >
> > >>
On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 21:12 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> On 6 August 2013 20:47, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:52AM +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> >> 6) warning-elimination: nobody uses cci_pmu_destroy
> >
> >> Presumably coming from the CCI stuff Tixy pulled in
> >
> > I'll apply
On 6 August 2013 20:47, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:52AM +0800, Andy Green wrote:
>
>> I went through and split out the fixes after examining each one.
>
> Please submit things normally - attachments are non-standard and
> difficult to work with (both from the point of view o
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:52AM +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> I went through and split out the fixes after examining each one.
Please submit things normally - attachments are non-standard and
difficult to work with (both from the point of view of applying and from
the point of view of workflow) a
On 6 August 2013 11:03, John Stultz wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 05:24 PM, Andy Green wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2) warning-elimination: android: binder
>>
>> This seems to be a problem with a patch already upstream
>>
>> 3) warning-elimination: androidization: mm
>>
>> Problem coming from Androidization patches
>
On 08/05/2013 05:24 PM, Andy Green wrote:
2) warning-elimination: android: binder
This seems to be a problem with a patch already upstream
3) warning-elimination: androidization: mm
Problem coming from Androidization patches
[snip]
5) warning-elimination: ion: use size_t-specific format
In
On 5 August 2013 22:11, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 07:37:10PM +0800, Andy Green wrote:
>> On 5 August 2013 18:59, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>> > - The regmap change isn't something that I've seen upstream...
>
>> If you mean where did the original come from
>
> I mean I haven't seen t
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 11:23:19PM +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> # Misc fixes which don't belong to any particular topic:
> ynk/llct-v3.10-misc-fixes
> "Add cross-build support to tools/lib/lk library"
> "perf tools: make perf to build in 3.9 kernel tree again"
> "ARM: crypto:
On 08/05/2013 03:37 PM, Andy Green wrote:
On 5 August 2013 18:59, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 06:42:33PM +0800, Andy Green wrote:
On 5 August 2013 18:16, Mark Brown wrote:
There may be other stuff lurking in linux-linaro that I'm not aware of,
everything is supposed to be ind
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 07:37:10PM +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> On 5 August 2013 18:59, Mark Brown wrote:
> > - The regmap change isn't something that I've seen upstream...
> If you mean where did the original come from
I mean I haven't seen that warning that I'm aware of.
> commit 5a08d1560298
On 5 August 2013 18:59, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 06:42:33PM +0800, Andy Green wrote:
>> On 5 August 2013 18:16, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>> > There may be other stuff lurking in linux-linaro that I'm not aware of,
>> > everything is supposed to be individually selected for backport.
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 06:42:33PM +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> On 5 August 2013 18:16, Mark Brown wrote:
> > There may be other stuff lurking in linux-linaro that I'm not aware of,
> > everything is supposed to be individually selected for backport.
> Literally linux-linaro I'm not sure is useful
On 5 August 2013 11:00, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> As was mentioned on linaro-kernel the plan is that you should be
> > sending me incremental updates as needed.
>
> But who decides what's needed? If what is in 3.10 works, why backport a
> different version? And I hadn't planned on spending a
On 5 August 2013 18:16, Mark Brown wrote:
> On 5 August 2013 03:45, Andy Green wrote:
>
>>
>> 1) There seems to be two choices, linux-linaro-lsk and
>> linux-linaro-lsk-android.
>>
>> I chose the android one, I assume it has the same "androidization"
>> series on top that linux-linaro-core-tracki
On 5 August 2013 03:45, Andy Green wrote:
> 1) There seems to be two choices, linux-linaro-lsk and
> linux-linaro-lsk-android.
>
> I chose the android one, I assume it has the same "androidization"
> series on top that linux-linaro-core-tracking used at 3.10? Are there
> any other differences?
On 5 August 2013 18:00, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 10:53 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On 5 August 2013 10:44, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 17:13 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
>>
>> > The whole list is good things to have I just wonder how
>
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 10:53 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On 5 August 2013 10:44, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 17:13 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
>
> > The whole list is good things to have I just wonder how
> ongoing
>
> > updates will be
On 5 August 2013 10:44, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 17:13 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
>
> > The whole list is good things to have I just wonder how ongoing
> > updates will be handled for backport. For example at some point
> > "Tweaks to the MCPM code which aren't upstream
On 5 August 2013 10:11, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 16:43 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
>
> > 5) Gator bits don't seem to be in there, presumably that's something
> > ARM would like to see in there (it appears in llct)
>
> Yes, and I believe someone was raising a card to get i
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 17:13 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> On 5 August 2013 16:58, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> >
> > tracking-armlt-cci
> > CCI driver and CCI PMU patches.
>
> We started using that the other day trying to track down a nasty bug,
> I didn't even know we got it from vexpress ^
On 5 August 2013 16:58, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 10:45 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
>
>> 2) I saw the vexpress integration stuff from ARM LT was included
>> already which is good, is there a wiki page (or README.html or the
>> gitweb is also good) explaining the composition?
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 16:43 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> On 5 August 2013 10:45, Andy Green wrote:
> > Hi Mark -
> >
> > I have some small practical questions about LSK. I was able to make a
> > tree with our linux-linaro-core-tracking@v3.10 LT patches on LSK basis
> > work well (so far).
> >
> > I
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 10:45 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> 2) I saw the vexpress integration stuff from ARM LT was included
> already which is good, is there a wiki page (or README.html or the
> gitweb is also good) explaining the composition?
The vexpress branch is basicall the same as what is in li
On 5 August 2013 10:45, Andy Green wrote:
> Hi Mark -
>
> I have some small practical questions about LSK. I was able to make a
> tree with our linux-linaro-core-tracking@v3.10 LT patches on LSK basis
> work well (so far).
>
> I found this repo (it needs its ./description updating)
>
> https://gi
Hi Mark -
I have some small practical questions about LSK. I was able to make a
tree with our linux-linaro-core-tracking@v3.10 LT patches on LSK basis
work well (so far).
I found this repo (it needs its ./description updating)
https://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=kernel/linux-linaro-stable.git;a=sum
33 matches
Mail list logo
