Hi All,
>From UDS last week I was inspired to run bootchart on our Linaru
Ubuntu-desktop LEB.
I collected the data on my panda board using the daily snapshot from last week.
>From a very quick examination of the output, it would seem we are IO bound.
I've created a quick wiki page about BootCha
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Nicolas Pitre
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 May 2011, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> >
> >> On 6 May 2011 16:06, Ken Werner wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Currently the GCC ARM backend doesn't provide a pattern to inline 64bit
> >> > __sy
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 02:40:22PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> If we're going to do up-front planning for the whole six months then
> yes, I think we definitely need to leave time for the planning stage.
> I don't think it matters whether we do it at what's conceptually
> the "end" of the cycle o
On 15 March 2011 20:57, Michael Hope wrote:
>
> I prefer bzr over svn for this project for reasons that are better
> discussed over a beer...
>
> I've updated the BzrTips page on the wiki:
> https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/BzrTips
>
> with links out to Andrew's, Loic's, and Marti
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Alexandros Frantzis
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I completely missed the Linaro release process session during LDS, but
> here are my thoughts on the Linaro development cycle.
>
> Currently, the Linaro cycle lags behind the Ubuntu cycle by one month.
> This is done so that
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Mounir Bsaibes
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>>
>> On 17 May 2011 09:54, Alexandros Frantzis
>> wrote:
>> > So my questions/suggestions are:
>> >
>> > 1. Do other engineers feel this way?
>>
>> From a working group perspect
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 May 2011 09:54, Alexandros Frantzis
> wrote:
> > So my questions/suggestions are:
> >
> > 1. Do other engineers feel this way?
>
> From a working group perspective, the Ubuntu cycle isn't very
> significant -- everything we do is on on
On 17 May 2011 09:54, Alexandros Frantzis
wrote:
> So my questions/suggestions are:
>
> 1. Do other engineers feel this way?
From a working group perspective, the Ubuntu cycle isn't very
significant -- everything we do is on one month cycles except
for the planning-and-UDS bit.
> 3. If we don't
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Alexandros Frantzis <
alexandros.frant...@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I completely missed the Linaro release process session during LDS, but
> here are my thoughts on the Linaro development cycle.
>
> Currently, the Linaro cycle lags behind the Ubuntu cycle by
On 20 April 2011 15:43, Jim Huang wrote:
> Reference results of the experiments on TI OMAP3430 at 600 MHz
[...]
> Code Review:
> https://review.source.android.com/#change,22419
Merged in AOSP:
http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/bionic.git;a=commitdiff;h=f50e9be5930a08fa825b0c23353c
W dniu 17.05.2011 10:54, Alexandros Frantzis pisze:
Hi all,
I completely missed the Linaro release process session during LDS, but
here are my thoughts on the Linaro development cycle.
Currently, the Linaro cycle lags behind the Ubuntu cycle by one month.
This is done so that the Linaro release
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2011, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>
>> On 6 May 2011 16:06, Ken Werner wrote:
>> >
>> > Currently the GCC ARM backend doesn't provide a pattern to inline 64bit
>> > __sync_* functions but the compiler emits __sync_*_8 function
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:14 PM, saeed bishara wrote:
> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Nicolas Pitre
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2011, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>>
>>> On 6 May 2011 16:06, Ken Werner wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Currently the GCC ARM backend doesn't provide a pattern to inline 64bit
>>
In the PMWG, that is what we ended up doing. 1 week before LDS,
everything that was still pending was postponed to the next cycle so
that work could begin in earnest on planning and *thinking* about the
goals for the next cycle.
With the proposed monthly releases, I guess the cadence with Ubuntu
b
To add to Alexandros' thoughts, we typically have our public plan
reviews a couple of weeks after LDS, which means that for the most
part, all engineering blueprints for the coming cycle must be done by
then (before then for the benefit of those compiling the slides, etc.
for the plan reviews ;-).
Hi all,
I completely missed the Linaro release process session during LDS, but
here are my thoughts on the Linaro development cycle.
Currently, the Linaro cycle lags behind the Ubuntu cycle by one month.
This is done so that the Linaro releases are based on a stable system.
Unfortunately, this s
Dear Chander Kashyap,
In message <1302843918-1105-1-git-send-email-chander.kash...@linaro.org> you
wrote:
> SROM config code is made common for S5P series of boards.
> smdkc100.c now refers to s5p-common/sromc.c for SROM related
> subroutines.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chander Kashyap
It appears this
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:13 AM, AKS wrote:
> Hi Ramana
>
> I thought I have tried
>
> ./configure x CFLAGS="-marm" after sending the email below.
Note that if you really typed './configure x CFLAGS="-marm"' it won't work.
CFLAGS needs to be set in the environment, and environment assig
Dear Chander Kashyap,
Sorry to late review.
On 21 April 2011 16:02, Chander Kashyap wrote:
> Added MMC SPL boot support for SMDKV310. This framework design is
> based on nand_spl support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chander Kashyap
> ---
> Makefile | 9 ++
> sp
19 matches
Mail list logo
