On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
>> > On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Amit Kucheria
>> > wrote:
>> >> I copied the 2 patches to http://people.canonical.com/~amitk/imx5
>> >>
>>
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Amit Kucheria
> > wrote:
> >> I copied the 2 patches to http://people.canonical.com/~amitk/imx5
> >>
> >
> > OK, as far as I can make out the patch does the right th
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Amit Kucheria
> wrote:
>> I copied the 2 patches to http://people.canonical.com/~amitk/imx5
>>
>
> OK, as far as I can make out the patch does the right thing.
>
> On Babbage 2.0 and the Pegatron lange5.1/nettop
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> I copied the 2 patches to http://people.canonical.com/~amitk/imx5
>
OK, as far as I can make out the patch does the right thing.
On Babbage 2.0 and the Pegatron lange5.1/nettop platforms, your check
is triggered, and at least on Babbage 2.0
On 10 Sep 02, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>
> Instead of having this empty mx51_neon_fixup() in the #else part...
>
> > @@ -98,3 +120,4 @@ static int __init post_cpu_init(void)
> > }
> >
> > postcore_initcall(post_cpu_init);
> > +late_initcall(mx51_neon_fix
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On 10 Sep 01, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> >
> > > On 10 Sep 01, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -284,6 +292,7 @@ MACHINE_START(MX51_BABBAGE, "Freescale MX51 Babbage
> > > Board")
> > > .phys_io = MX
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> I guess I should get the board file for the efikamx done quickly. I'm
> told it is similar (identical?) to the pegatron nettops.
Yeah, if you look at the debug cable, it says lange 5.x :-)
--
Loïc Minier
Hi,
> The Babbage 2.0 _might_ work. Nobody has tried it yet.
>
> I guess I should get the board file for the efikamx done quickly. I'm
> told it is similar (identical?) to the pegatron nettops.
That was my understanding too, though I haven't got my hands on one to compare.
It would be good to ha
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Bryan Wu wrote:
>> Nico and Amit,
>>
>> Thanks for this quickly solution. I believe it is much better than my
>> dirty hack in our Ubuntu Lucid kernel and it's good for upstream to
>> me.
>>
>> My TO2 BB2.5 boar
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Bryan Wu wrote:
> Nico and Amit,
>
> Thanks for this quickly solution. I believe it is much better than my
> dirty hack in our Ubuntu Lucid kernel and it's good for upstream to
> me.
>
> My TO2 BB2.5 board is bricked, so maybe we need other folks with the
> hardware
Nico and Amit,
Thanks for this quickly solution. I believe it is much better than my
dirty hack in our Ubuntu Lucid kernel and it's good for upstream to
me.
My TO2 BB2.5 board is bricked, so maybe we need other folks with the
hardware for testing.
Thanks,
-Bryan
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:12 AM,
On 10 Sep 01, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>
> > On 10 Sep 01, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> [...]
>
> > @@ -284,6 +292,7 @@ MACHINE_START(MX51_BABBAGE, "Freescale MX51 Babbage
> > Board")
> > .phys_io = MX51_AIPS1_BASE_ADDR,
> > .io_pg_offst = ((MX51_AIPS1_BA
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On 10 Sep 01, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Unfortunately, it seems after talking to Nicolas that mdesc->fixup() is
> > > called too early.
> > >
> > > Nicolas suggested linking the i.MX5 cod
On 10 Sep 01, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>
[snip]
> > Unfortunately, it seems after talking to Nicolas that mdesc->fixup() is
> > called too early.
> >
> > Nicolas suggested linking the i.MX5 code _after_ the VFP module :)
>
> Something like this patch:
>
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On 10 Sep 01, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 01, 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > > That patch likely won't go upstream.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because it adds a sub-arch, revision-specific override into generic
> architecture code (vfpmodule.c)
>
> T
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:56:15PM +0300, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> Because it adds a sub-arch, revision-specific override into generic
> architecture code (vfpmodule.c)
>
> To do this elegantly with a hope to get it to mainline, we'd need a way to
> disable the hwcap through some board-specific fixu
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> Because it adds a sub-arch, revision-specific override into generic
> architecture code (vfpmodule.c)
>
> To do this elegantly with a hope to get it to mainline, we'd need a way to
> disable the hwcap through some board-specific fixup code that can chec
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>> I would be ok if we would only support TO3 and the kernel wouldn't boot
>> on TO2 hardware, but AIUI the kernel will boot just fine and turn on
>> NEON on TO2 such as Babbage 2.x, so I'm a bit scared by just release
>> noting it.
>
> Ano
On 10 Sep 01, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > That patch likely won't go upstream.
>
> Why not?
Because it adds a sub-arch, revision-specific override into generic
architecture code (vfpmodule.c)
To do this elegantly with a hope to get it to mainline, we'd ne
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> That patch likely won't go upstream.
Why not?
> OTOH, how important is support below TO3?
For Linaro, not too important I guess, some people have TO2 hardware,
some Babbage 2.0 or 2.5, albeit 2.0 is not really supported anymore.
EfikaMX also come
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> That patch likely won't go upstream.
>
> OTOH, how important is support below TO3?
>
> TO1 won't even boot on Freescale's BSP, IIRC. AFAICT, Freescale isn't testing
> their BSP on TO2 if you take into account bugs like LP # 615722 [1] th
That patch likely won't go upstream.
OTOH, how important is support below TO3?
TO1 won't even boot on Freescale's BSP, IIRC. AFAICT, Freescale isn't testing
their BSP on TO2 if you take into account bugs like LP # 615722 [1] that
caused bricking of Babbage 2.5 boards. And new HW is all TO3 and s
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Bryan, I think you had worked on a patch to only turn on NEON on TO3+
> but not on TO1/TO2 boards?
>
Exactly, That's a silicon issue of TO1 and TO2, but Freescale fixed it
in TO3+. Here is the NEON patch:
http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=ubuntu
Thanks Bryan; Amit, what's your take on upstream TO1/TO2 support and on
upstreaming this?
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010, Bryan Wu wrote:
> Exactly, That's a silicon issue of TO1 and TO2, but Freescale fixed it
> in TO3+. Here is the NEON patch:
> http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=ubuntu/ubuntu-lucid.git;a=c
Bryan, I think you had worked on a patch to only turn on NEON on TO3+
but not on TO1/TO2 boards?
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010, John Rigby wrote:
> Amit, Bryan:
>
> Do you know what the correct setting for CONFIG_NEON is for MX51? In
> a discussion on IRC there was mention that there is a patch that ma
Amit, Bryan:
Do you know what the correct setting for CONFIG_NEON is for MX51? In
a discussion on IRC there was mention that there is a patch that makes
it safe to turn on. Do you know if that patch has made it upstream?
Thanks,
John
___
linaro-dev m
26 matches
Mail list logo
