checksum file for LEB images

Hi, Currently Linaro is not providing checksum file for LEB images. For example, http://releases.linaro.org/12.03/android/leb-panda/ has MD5SUM files but it contains value for only boot.tar.bz2, system.tar.bz2 and userdata.tar.bz2. There is no equivalent for the most important file which is LEB

Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: imx: Add common imx cpuidle init functionality.

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 08:43:08AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > Sascha or Shawn, any further comments on my question? > Sorry for the late response, Rob. > I don't think we need a cpu_is_imx6q(), but having some i.MX6 specific > hook at device_initcall time can't be too wrong. Shawn? > Yep, it

Re: Preliminary 12.04 linux-linaro kernel tree

On 04/19/2012 11:33 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: > Andrey/Ricardo: do you agree? Can we make such a > "linux-linaro-tracking-core" branch (and a tag accordingly) > available > that basically reflects the state we have after merging WG > top

Re: No group tracks at Connect

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Deepak Saxena wrote: > On 19 April 2012 12:15, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >> On 19 April 2012 13:21, Deepak Saxena wrote: >>> On 19 April 2012 08:53, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:43:56AM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote: > While we're pla

Re: No group tracks at Connect

On 19 April 2012 14:47, Deepak Saxena wrote: > On 19 April 2012 12:15, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >> On 19 April 2012 13:21, Deepak Saxena wrote: >>> On 19 April 2012 08:53, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:43:56AM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote: > While we're planning for

Re: No group tracks at Connect

On 19 April 2012 12:15, Zach Pfeffer wrote: > On 19 April 2012 13:21, Deepak Saxena wrote: >> On 19 April 2012 08:53, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:43:56AM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote: While we're planning for connect, I'd like to suggest that we do away w

Re: No group tracks at Connect

On 19 April 2012 14:29, Ricardo Salveti wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Christian Robottom Reis > wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:43:56AM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >>> While we're planning for connect, I'd like to suggest that we do away >>> with team tracks all together and just

Re: No group tracks at Connect

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:43:56AM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >> While we're planning for connect, I'd like to suggest that we do away >> with team tracks all together and just have topic tracks. This would >> align with our topic

Re: No group tracks at Connect

On 19 April 2012 13:21, Deepak Saxena wrote: > On 19 April 2012 08:53, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:43:56AM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >>> While we're planning for connect, I'd like to suggest that we do away >>> with team tracks all together and just have topic tr

Re: No group tracks at Connect

On 19 April 2012 08:53, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:43:56AM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >> While we're planning for connect, I'd like to suggest that we do away >> with team tracks all together and just have topic tracks. This would >> align with our topic based appr

Re: Fix for Ubuntu networking [Re: Preliminary 12.04 linux-linaro kernel tree]

On 04/19/2012 04:03 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 11:17 +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 10:22 +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 00:22 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote: Greetings, I updated (overwrote) the current linux-linaro t

Re: No group tracks at Connect

On 19 April 2012 10:53, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:43:56AM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >> While we're planning for connect, I'd like to suggest that we do away >> with team tracks all together and just have topic tracks. This would >> align with our topic based appr

[PATCH 2/2] regulator: Add Freescale's MC34708 regulators

From: "Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu)" This patch adds the support of MC34708 regulators. Signed-off-by: Robin Gong Signed-off-by: Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu) Cc: Liam Girdwood Cc: Mark Brown Cc: Samuel Ortiz Cc: Shawn Guo --- drivers/regulator/Kconfig |7 + drivers/regulator/Makefil

[PATCH 1/2] mfd: Add Freescale's PMIC MC34708 support

From: "Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu)" Freescale MC34708 is a PMIC which supports the following features: * 6 multi-mode buck regulators * Boost regulator for USB OTG. * 8 regulators for thermal budget optimization * 10-bit ADC * Real time clock Signed-off-by: Robin Gong Signed-off-by: Ying-Chun

Re: No group tracks at Connect

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:43:56AM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote: > While we're planning for connect, I'd like to suggest that we do away > with team tracks all together and just have topic tracks. This would > align with our topic based approach to things now, and would be a way > to breakdown our sil

Re: Preliminary 12.04 linux-linaro kernel tree

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Andrey Konovalov < andrey.konova...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 04/19/2012 03:07 PM, Alexander Sack wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Andy Green > **> wrote: >> >>On 04/19/2012 08:53 AM, Somebody in the thread at some poi

Re: [PATCH 06/17][V2] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - use the omap4_idle_data variable directly

On 04/10/2012 12:56 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: Daniel Lezcano writes: We are storing the 'omap4_idle_data' in the private data field of the cpuidle device. As we are using this variable only in this file, that does not really make sense. Let's use the global variable directly instead dereferencin

Re: [PATCH v2] iommu: OMAP: device detach on domain destroy

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 01:09:41PM -0500, Omar Ramirez Luna wrote: > 'domain_destroy with devices attached' case isn't yet handled, instead > code assumes that the device was already detached. > > If the domain is destroyed the hardware still has access to invalid > pointers to its page table and

Re: Preliminary 12.04 linux-linaro kernel tree

On 04/19/2012 03:07 PM, Alexander Sack wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Andy Green mailto:andy.gr...@linaro.org>> wrote: On 04/19/2012 08:53 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: >> OK, so this is a major change to what linux-linaro was before. > > While this

Re: [PATCH 00/17][V2] ARM: OMAP3/4 : cpuidle34xx and cpuidle44xx cleanups

On 04/10/2012 01:23 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: Daniel Lezcano writes: This patchset makes some cleanup on these cpuidle drivers and consolidate the code across both architecture. Thanks for this really nice cleanup. I have some comments on specific patches, but here's some general comments: S

Re: [PATCH 10/17][V2] ARM: OMAP3: cpuidle - remove the 'valid' field

On 04/10/2012 01:13 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: Daniel Lezcano writes: With the previous changes all the states are valid, except the last state which can be handled by decreasing the number of states. Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet --- [ ... ] if (IS_PM34XX_ERR

Re: [PATCH 02/17][V2] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - Declare the states with the driver declaration

On 04/10/2012 12:37 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: Daniel Lezcano writes: The cpuidle API allows to declare statically the states in the driver structure. Let's use it. We do no longer need the fill_cstate function called at runtime and by the way adding more instructions at boot time. Signed-off-by

[PATCH] ARM: ux500: add the cpuidle driver for WFI and ARM retention

This patch adds the cpuidle driver for the ux500 SoC. The boards saves 12mA with these states. It is based on the latest cpuidle consolidation from Robert Lee. The cpu can go to retention only if the other core is in WFI. If the other cpu is in WFI and we decoupled the gic from the cores, then we

Re: Preliminary 12.04 linux-linaro kernel tree

On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 10:22 +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 00:22 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > I updated (overwrote) the current linux-linaro tree > > (git://git.linaro.org/kernel/linux-linaro-tracking.git , linux-linaro > > branch). > > That bu

Re: Preliminary 12.04 linux-linaro kernel tree

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Andy Green wrote: > On 04/19/2012 08:53 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: > > >> OK, so this is a major change to what linux-linaro was before. > > > > While this is different, it's not entirely different from what we had > > before. The major change

Fix for Ubuntu networking [Re: Preliminary 12.04 linux-linaro kernel tree]

On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 11:17 +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 10:22 +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 00:22 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > > Greetings, > > > > > > I updated (overwrote) the current linux-linaro tree > > > (git://git.linaro.org/

Re: Preliminary 12.04 linux-linaro kernel tree

On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 10:22 +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 00:22 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > I updated (overwrote) the current linux-linaro tree > > (git://git.linaro.org/kernel/linux-linaro-tracking.git , linux-linaro > > branch). > > That bu

Re: Preliminary 12.04 linux-linaro kernel tree

On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 00:22 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > Greetings, > > I updated (overwrote) the current linux-linaro tree > (git://git.linaro.org/kernel/linux-linaro-tracking.git , linux-linaro > branch). That builds OK for vexpress and boots Ubuntu. I also kicked off an Android build [1]

Re: [PATCH] prctl.2, proc.5: proposal to reflect http://lwn.net/Articles/484162

Dmitry, Thanks for this patch. Would you be willing to revise it a little to add some words about the *purpose* of timer slack. Thanks Michael On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Dmitry Antipov wrote: > Document PR_GET_TIMERSLACK and PR_SET_TIMERSLACK for prctl (2). > Document /proc/sys/kernel/ti

Re: Preliminary 12.04 linux-linaro kernel tree

On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 06:39 +0800, Andy Green wrote: > As I pointed out above, the issue is not that I happen to be looking for > WG content, but that if you will bind together multiple LT trees they > have to have a chance to converge on what ingredients you are mandating. > > CMA is a good examp