On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 02:27 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 07:14 +0800, Andy Green wrote:If
> >> the current one performs best and is on a random HEAD commit, we
> >> certainly shouldn't wind it backwards to last
On 11/05/12 13:04, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
On 05/11/2012 01:04 AM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
Greetings,
So far I wasn't updating the linux-linaro tree since the 12.04 release.
(The generic topic updates were being done to the
linux-linaro-core-tracking tree)
Now it is time to
On 05/11/2012 01:04 AM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> So far I wasn't updating the linux-linaro tree since the 12.04 release.
> (The generic topic updates were being done to the
> linux-linaro-core-tracking tree)
>
> Now it is time to move the focus to the linux-linaro tree. For one we
Hello Uwe and Sascha,
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Robert Lee wrote:
> A change is needed in the IMX_IO_P2V macro to allow all imx5 platforms
> to use common definitions when accessing registers of peripherals on
> the AIPS2 bus.
>
> This change was tested for mapping conflicts using the iop2v
On 11/05/12 10:19, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Andy Green wrote:
On 11/05/12 08:27, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
4. in between RCs, we only move mainline on our linux-linaro release
baseline forward if we see a working tracking b
On Fri, 11 May 2012 12:11:36 +1200, Michael Hudson-Doyle
wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2012 00:30:26 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Ricardo Salveti
> > > Sure, I just think there are better places for it :-) Based on issues
> > > we had with LAVA and Jenkins at the
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Andy Green wrote:
> On 11/05/12 08:27, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>
>> 4. in between RCs, we only move mainline on our linux-linaro release
>> baseline forward if we see a working tracking build that wouldn't drop
>> any topics that already made it
On 11/05/12 08:27, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
4. in between RCs, we only move mainline on our linux-linaro release
baseline forward if we see a working tracking build that wouldn't drop
any topics that already made it into this RC cycle.
The probability of getting a good unif
On 11/05/12 08:32, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Andy Green wrote:
On 11/05/12 07:43, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 07:14 +0800, Andy Green wrote:If
the current one performs best and is on a random HEAD commit,
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Andy Green wrote:
> On 11/05/12 07:43, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>>
>> On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 07:14 +0800, Andy Green wrote:If
>>>
>>> the current one performs best and is on a random HEAD commit, we
>>> certainly shouldn't wind it backwards to last
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 07:14 +0800, Andy Green wrote:If
>> the current one performs best and is on a random HEAD commit, we
>> certainly shouldn't wind it backwards to last -rc that performs worse
>> just because that's "easier to commun
On 11/05/12 07:43, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 07:14 +0800, Andy Green wrote:If
the current one performs best and is on a random HEAD commit, we
certainly shouldn't wind it backwards to last -rc that performs worse
just because that's "easier to communicate".
On Fri, 11 May 2012 00:30:26 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Ricardo Salveti
> > Sure, I just think there are better places for it :-) Based on issues
> > we had with LAVA and Jenkins at the previous cycle, if I had one email
> > for every issue, I'd send at least
On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 07:14 +0800, Andy Green wrote:If
> the current one performs best and is on a random HEAD commit, we
> certainly shouldn't wind it backwards to last -rc that performs worse
> just because that's "easier to communicate".
I agree, I wasn't envisioning winding backwards, more
On 11/05/12 06:57, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 00:46 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 23:34 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
Now it is time to move the focus to the linux-linaro t
On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 00:46 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 23:34 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> >> Now it is time to move the focus to the linux-linaro tree. For one week
> >> it will use the mainline tip as t
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 23:34 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> Now it is time to move the focus to the linux-linaro tree. For one week
>> it will use the mainline tip as the base. Then, on next Thursday the
>> most recent -rc will be se
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Ricardo Salveti
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Wookey wrote:
>>> +++ Christian Robottom Reis [2012-05-10 17:20 -0300]:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:55:26PM -0700, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
>>
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Ricardo Salveti
wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Wookey wrote:
>> +++ Christian Robottom Reis [2012-05-10 17:20 -0300]:
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:55:26PM -0700, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
>>> > Sorry to say that, but I hate these kind of emails at Linar
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Ricardo Salveti
wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Christian Robottom Reis
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:55:26PM -0700, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
>>> Sorry to say that, but I hate these kind of emails at Linaro Dev, as I
>>> believe we have other pla
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Christian Robottom Reis [2012-05-10 17:20 -0300]:
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:55:26PM -0700, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
>> > Sorry to say that, but I hate these kind of emails at Linaro Dev, as I
>> > believe we have other places (and better ones)
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Christian Robottom Reis
wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:55:26PM -0700, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
>> Sorry to say that, but I hate these kind of emails at Linaro Dev, as I
>> believe we have other places (and better ones) to report such issues.
>> Twitter would pro
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 23:34 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> Now it is time to move the focus to the linux-linaro tree. For one week
> it will use the mainline tip as the base. Then, on next Thursday the
> most recent -rc will be selected as the base, and won't be changed until
> 12.05 is releas
On 11 May 2012 02:50, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:51:47AM -0700, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
>> W dniu 06.05.2012 16:06, Michael Hope pisze:
>> >Hi there. Hopefully an easy question but I'm stumped. How do I
>> >install the armel softfp libc6 on a new Precise armhf
+++ Christian Robottom Reis [2012-05-10 17:20 -0300]:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:55:26PM -0700, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
> > Sorry to say that, but I hate these kind of emails at Linaro Dev, as I
> > believe we have other places (and better ones) to report such issues.
> > Twitter would probably be
On 10 May 2012 15:20, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:55:26PM -0700, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
>> Sorry to say that, but I hate these kind of emails at Linaro Dev, as I
>> believe we have other places (and better ones) to report such issues.
>> Twitter would probably be th
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:55:26PM -0700, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
> Sorry to say that, but I hate these kind of emails at Linaro Dev, as I
> believe we have other places (and better ones) to report such issues.
> Twitter would probably be the way to go.
Well, to be honest I don't really see the pro
Sorry to say that, but I hate these kind of emails at Linaro Dev, as I
believe we have other places (and better ones) to report such issues.
Twitter would probably be the way to go.
If you really need to send it to linaro-dev, would you mind at least
giving more information and writing the email p
Greetings,
So far I wasn't updating the linux-linaro tree since the 12.04 release.
(The generic topic updates were being done to the
linux-linaro-core-tracking tree)
Now it is time to move the focus to the linux-linaro tree. For one week
it will use the mainline tip as the base. Then, on nex
We need an irc aggregator to flatten all the channels to one on rx and
broadcast on tx for those of use who want to live in a flat world (only
half kidding:)
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Andy Doan wrote:
> On 05/10/2012 03:57 AM, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:36 AM, A
--
Zach Pfeffer
Android Platform Team Lead, Linaro Platform Teams
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro
http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
___
linaro-dev maili
On 05/10/2012 03:57 AM, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Andy Doan wrote:
We have a new channel on FreeNode for LAVA specific discussions:
#linaro-lava
snip
Do we really need another extra channel?
I believe the current list is already too much, and the lava folks a
+++ Christian Robottom Reis [2012-05-10 11:50 -0300]:
> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:51:47AM -0700, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> > W dniu 06.05.2012 16:06, Michael Hope pisze:
> > >Hi there. Hopefully an easy question but I'm stumped. How do I
> > >install the armel softfp libc6 on a new Precise arm
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:51:47AM -0700, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 06.05.2012 16:06, Michael Hope pisze:
> >Hi there. Hopefully an easy question but I'm stumped. How do I
> >install the armel softfp libc6 on a new Precise armhf install?
> >
> >I set APT::Architectures to { "armel" } and
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM, wrote:
> From: Rajagopal Venkat
>
> The updated version of these test scripts are
> available in their respective directories.
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Rajagopal Venkat
Ack. Hongbo, please merge this to pm-qa.
> ---
> run_template
From: Rajagopal Venkat
The updated version of these test scripts are
available in their respective directories.
Signed-off-by: Rajagopal Venkat
---
run_template |7 --
testcases.awk | 40 --
testcases/Makefile
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 09:27:02AM -0500, Rob Lee wrote:
>> Sascha,
>>
>> >
>> > This clk_get should go away here and be moved somewhere to
>> > initialization. Also, if getting this clock fails we can still
>> > do regular cpu_do_idle. Additi
Hello Uwe,
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Uwe Kleine-König
wrote:
> Hello Robert,
>
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 07:24:17PM -0500, Robert Lee wrote:
>> A change is needed in the IMX_IO_P2V macro to allow all imx5 platforms
>> to use common definitions when accessing registers of peripherals on
>>
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 09:27:02AM -0500, Rob Lee wrote:
> Sascha,
>
> >
> > This clk_get should go away here and be moved somewhere to
> > initialization. Also, if getting this clock fails we can still
> > do regular cpu_do_idle. Additionally, if clk_get fails, we'll
> > have a ERR_PTR value in g
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 03:18:53PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:50:35PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > My feeling is that we should just mandate DT booting for multiplatform
> > kernels, because it significantly reduces the combinatorial space
> > at compile
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:55:15AM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 03:18:53PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > I think what you're proposing is a totally artificial restriction.
> > There's no problem with a kernel supporting DT and non-DT together.
> > We've proven that
The current Makefile compiles the cpuidle34xx.c and cpuidle44xx.c files
even if the cpuidle option is not set in the kernel.
This patch fixes this by creating a section in the Makefile where these
files are compiled only if the CONFIG_CPU_IDLE option is set.
This modification breaks an implicit d
Hello Robert,
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 07:24:17PM -0500, Robert Lee wrote:
> A change is needed in the IMX_IO_P2V macro to allow all imx5 platforms
> to use common definitions when accessing registers of peripherals on
> the AIPS2 bus.
>
> This change was tested for mapping conflicts using the iop
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Andy Doan wrote:
> We have a new channel on FreeNode for LAVA specific discussions:
>
> #linaro-lava
>
> This channel allows participants who are working with Linaro to join and
> just follow progress on LAVA.
>
> We should be using the same guidelines for deciding
The state count is initialized in the driver structure, the cpuidle
core uses it to initialize the device state count.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c |2 --
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c b/arc
This patch removes the ops usage because we have the index
passed as parameter to the idle function and we can determine
if we do WFI or memory retention.
The benefit of this cleanup is the removal of:
* the ops
* the statedata usage because we want to get rid of it in all the drivers
* extra s
These couple of patches use the new cpuidle core api to refactor
some part of the code. The first one removes the state count initialization
as it is done from the cpuidle core and the second one use the new
API and removes the ops.
The patchset is based on Lenb's tree on top of Robert Lee cpuidle
47 matches
Mail list logo
