How to retrieve CPU frequency when cpufreq is missing under 3.16.0-4-arm64?

I'm testing on an early Mustang board. Its ARMv8/Aarch64, but it lacks the mostly standard CRC and Crypto extensions. The tests run in userland, without any elevation. One of the tests performs some benchmarks. For accurate results the test script attempts to query the CPU frequency. It appears

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-05 23:10 +0100, peter green wrote: > On 05/06/16 23:01, Wookey wrote: > >>Ok, so a total of 6 shared between the two architectures? > Thats what it looks like to me. > >And I think we are building armhf on the arm64 build machines too? > I don't think so. At least I see no evidence of

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-05 14:46 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > > [0]: I'd define core packages as everything needed to install, boot, and > > then build packages on that arch. The rebootstrap project gives us some > > idea of what those are; but add to that the kernel and any bootloaders. > > Being able to

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 05/06/16 23:01, Wookey wrote: Ok, so a total of 6 shared between the two architectures? Thats what it looks like to me. And I think we are building armhf on the arm64 build machines too? I don't think so. At least I see no evidence of it on buildd.debian.org .

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-05 13:38 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > peter green: > > On 05/06/16 11:01, Niels Thykier wrote: > >> all arm ports have DSA concerns. > >> > > Is there a current reference to what these concerns are? Is there still > > a lack of out of band management? (the old mail I found on the

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Steven Chamberlain: > Hi, > Hi, > John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> I have invested lots of time and effort to get sparc64 into a usable state >> in Debian. >> We are close to 11.000 installed packages. Missing packages include Firefox, >> Thunderbird/Icedove, golang and LibreOffice to name

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

peter green: > On 05/06/16 11:01, Niels Thykier wrote: >> all arm ports have DSA concerns. >> > Is there a current reference to what these concerns are? Is there still > a lack of out of band management? (the old mail I found on the topic > said it was "being worked on", sledge whats the

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi, On Sun, 2016-06-05 at 13:26 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > sh4: > > > The two biggest issues with sh4 are currently with binutils and the > kernel. binutils has problems when building Qt5: > There is in fact another big elephant in the room, which I have mentioned several

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

thanks to everyone explaining arch:any to me :) -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 05/06/16 11:01, Niels Thykier wrote: all arm ports have DSA concerns. Is there a current reference to what these concerns are? Is there still a lack of out of band management? (the old mail I found on the topic said it was "being worked on", sledge whats the status here?) are there

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > I have invested lots of time and effort to get sparc64 into a usable state in > Debian. > We are close to 11.000 installed packages. Missing packages include Firefox, > Thunderbird/Icedove, golang and LibreOffice to name the most important ones. Is there

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 05/06/16 13:00, Holger Levsen wrote: On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:26:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: ppc64: This architecture is basically on par with the release architectures. We have over 11.000 packages installed [...] sparc64: We are close to 11.000

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/05/2016 02:00 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:26:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> ppc64: >> >> This architecture is basically on par with the release architectures. We >> have over >> 11.000 packages installed > [...] >> sparc64: >> We are close to

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:26:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > ppc64: > > This architecture is basically on par with the release architectures. We have > over > 11.000 packages installed [...] > sparc64: > We are close to 11.000 installed packages. I'm not sure whether you are

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi Niels! On 06/05/2016 12:01 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: > Beyond mips64el, we are not aware of any new architectures for Stretch. > > I kindly ask you to: > > * Porters, please assert if your architecture is targeting Stretch. To give some insight what's happening in Debian Ports. We have two

[Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi members of DSA, Security, RT and all porters. While the freeze still seem far away, I think it is time to start with the architecture qualifications. For starters, here are the architectures we are aware of: * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x -

Re: Cubox-i 4x4 RAM [was Re: Performance of armhf boards]

Vagrant Cascadian writes: > [ Unknown signature status ] > On 2016-04-24, Rick Thomas wrote: >> Any chance I could download a pre-built binary? > > Just uploaded u-boot 2016.05-rc2 packages to: > > deb http://cascadia.debian.net/~vagrant/debian UNRELEASED main > > The