linaro-dev February 2011

linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org

120 participants
166 discussions

by Nicolas Pitre

I just stumbled across this: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.debugging.openocd.devel/15584 And the mentioned clock issue seems to be fixed here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.debugging.openocd.devel/15619 This is excellent news, and I think we ought to support this at some point. Nicolas

14 years, 2 months

Notes & Actions: Linaro Graphics Working Group - Feb 02, 2011

by Alexandros Frantzis

Hi, notes and actions from our Wednesday graphics working group call are available on the wiki: + https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Middleware/Graphics/Notes/2011-02-02 Details about when and where of this meeting can be found here: + https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Middleware/Graphics#Weekly%20Public%2… Summary ======= * Cairo GLES work progressing: one patchset accepted, one WIP patchset in review. * New version of glmark2 (11.01) uploaded to natty universe. * Investigation on qtwebkit traces ongoing. * In contact with GLEW upstream to discuss GLES support. * IRC connectivity issues for Samsung Bangalore assignees being worked on by IT department using a clean-room approach. Action Items ============ * Everyone to report access status for git.linaro.org. * Jesse to ensure that we have valid conference call numbers for all members of the gfx WG (in progress). * Jesse to keep track of nux licensing issues. * Everyone to send Jesse a list of the licenses of the projects they are working on (both new and existing). Thanks, -- - Alexandros

14 years, 2 months

Minutes and actions Multimedia working group meeting on 1st Feb 2011

by Sachin Gupta

Hi All, Please find enclosed link to minutes and actions for multimedia wg meeting on 1st Feb 2011. https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Middleware/Multimedia/Notes/2011-02-01 Thanks Sachin

14 years, 2 months

Minutes & actions: Toolchain Working Group meetings of Jan 31 & Feb 02, 2011

by Mounir Bsaibes

Greetings, Enclosed you'll find a link to the agenda, minutes and actions from the Linaro toolchain working group weekly meetings of Feb 03 & Jan 31, 2011. https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2011-01-31 https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2011-02-02 == Summary == * Benchmark approach continues to solidify ( https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/1105GCCPerformancePlan) * Benchmark suites has been chosen (DENBench, Telecom, CoreMark) * Infrastructure is ready to start historical builds * Swing-modulo-scheduling based performance work is continuing * qemu-linaro is almost ready for it's first release. Two rcs have been put out so far. * Perparing to get the string routines into Ubuntu before the feature freeze

14 years, 2 months

Minutes & Actions: Kernel Working Group meeting of Jan 31, 2011

by Mounir Bsaibes

Greetings, Enclosed you'll find a link to the agenda, minutes and actions from the Linaro kernel working group weekly meeting of Jan 31, 2011. https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/KernelConsolidation/Meetings/2011-01-… === Summary === * Rebased Linaro tree on 2.6.38-rc1. * Device tree * Have engineers on Samsung, Beagle, Panda, Tegra, Versatile Express and handling backward compatibility for common devices. The goal is to get device-tree turned on in most/all builds. Need device-tree work for standard clock sources. * Close to getting core device-tree patches into Nicolas's tree, but fighting device-tree corruption bug on Versatile Express. Also chasing down an issue that shows up only on qemu. Have a patch that finesses clock sources by requiring a couple of device-tree APIs from SoC-specific clock code, but which can be superseded by real clock support. * Working to allow driver to retrieve device-specific information from device tree in order to make progress while core device-tree code is being refined. The kernel must still be passed a full device tree, but this allows SoCs to implement device tree incrementally as core device-tree support is put in place. Mentor and Xylinx also contributing to device tree. * Device tree support for Samsung platforms. Getting device-support information from device tree. Will post device tree DTS file to ensure that we all agree on format. Grant suggests making DTS filename reflect platform, and also using "include" facility to reduce duplication. * Some clock work in progress for device tree. Locking issues being addressed. * Looking to upstreaming TI BSP, figuring out the best way to get all 2,000 patches upstream. * Linaro Android kernel * Now boots, pushed changes to Linaro git tree. * Reviewing Andorid patches and looking to find minimal set of patches to get Android UI running (ashven and binder). * Pushing second chunk of clock-related patches up to -tip via Thomas Gleixner. * Suspend-blocker interaction with first chunk previously pushed will require some application interaction, but this is all a bit speculative given lack of suspend blockers in mainline. * Working on uboot SPL for OMAP4, making a mini-uboot from uboot to replace xloader. Making clock configuration independent of CPU frequency. Some roadblocks in eMMC support -- excessive memory footprint. * Chasing down tightened real-time checks, which cause failures when forward porting TREE_RCU priority boosting to the 2.6.38 series.

14 years, 2 months

New "linaro-kernel" mailing list

by Paul E. McKenney

Hello! We have created a new linaro-kernel mailing list for kernel-specific discussions. Of course, discussions that are of general interest should continue on linaro-dev. The new linaro-kernel mailing list is open to all comers, both inside and outside Linaro, and the archives are publicly accessible. To join, please point your browser to the following: http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-kernel Thanx, Paul

14 years, 2 months

Test2 - please discard

by Frederic Turgis

Set again option "Receive your own posts ?" setting to yes fred

14 years, 2 months

Test - please discard

by Frederic Turgis

Test fred

14 years, 2 months

Linaro 11.05 Alpha-2 Released

by Jamie Bennett

Hi, The Linaro team is pleased to announce the availability of the 11.05 Alpha-2 images. These are still very early developer images but we encourage all with supported hardware to use and test them by downloading from: http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/ Highlights of this release include: * Added Gumstix Overo support. * New Developer image including console base developer tools. * Complete rewrite of the installation tools (linaro-image-tools) to improve the user experience. * A staggering 141 out of 160 packages have been upgraded since Alpha-1. The images consist of two parts. A hardware pack which can be found under the ./hwpacks directory which contains hardware specific packages such as the kernel and bootloader. The second part is the roofs which is combined with the hardware pack to create a complete image. For For information on how to create an image please see: http://wiki.linaro.org/Releases/MilestoneBuilds More information on Linaro in general and the 11.05 plans can be found at: * Homepage: http://www.linaro.org * Wiki: http://wiki.linaro.org * 11.05: http://wiki.linaro.org/Releases/1105 Also subscribe to the important Linaro mailing lists and join our IRC channels to stay on top of Linaro developments: * Announcements: http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-announce * Development: http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev * IRC: #linaro on irc.linaro.org or irc.freenode.net For any errata issues please see: http://wiki.linaro.org/Releases/1105/Alpha2#Issues Bug reports for this release should be filed in Launchpad against the individual packages that are affected, if a suitable package cannot be identified, feel free to assign them to: http://www.launchpad.net/linaro Regards, Jamie. -- Linaro Release Manager

14 years, 2 months

tcl8.5 breaks dpkg-cross assumptions and multiarch

by Wookey

tcl8.5-dev contains /usr/lib/tcl8.5/tclConfig.sh which is a symlink pointing to /usr/share/tcltk/tcl8.5/tclConfig.sh Currently dpkg-cross only copies symlinks across when crossing a package if the symlink points to somewhere within /lib. symlinks outside /lib are ignored because they are not arch-dependent so shouldn't need to be crossed. The file /usr/lib/tcl8.5/tclConfig.sh is used by packages which build extensions to tcl (such as sqlite), so that files does need to be present. The file is essentially a cache of the config options TCL was built with so that extensions can make sure they match up. However it is not arch-independent. e.g. Line 22 of that file is TCL_CC='x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc' on the x86_64 version and TCL_CC='arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc' on the armel version. Other options also differ between 32-bit and 64-bit arches for example. So this file is arch-dependent in that it's different for each arch it is built-on but arch-independent in that it's just a shell file. Debian policy (8.2) says: --------------- It is recommended that supporting files and run-time support programs that do not need to be invoked manually by users, but are nevertheless required for the package to function, be placed (if they are binary) in a subdirectory of /usr/lib, preferably under /usr/lib/package-name. If the program or file is architecture independent, the recommendation is for it to be placed in a subdirectory of /usr/share instead, preferably under /usr/share/package-name. Following the package-name naming convention ensures that the file names change when the shared object version changes. Files and support programs only useful when compiling software against the library should be included in the development package for the library --------------- A maintainer reading the above could reasonably decide that /usr/share was the right place for this file, because the file itself (being just shell) is arch-independent. The problem is that the contents are arch-dependent. Policy is not at all clear on this distinction (It's been making my head hurt all day). For multiarch, or existing dpkg-cross cross-compiling, to work, arch-dependent needs to mean either form _or_ content (see below for elaboration). The original tcl build puts both tclConfig.sh and tcl.m4 in /usr/lib but the debian packaging moves them to /usr/share/tcltk/tcl8.5 and /usr/share/aclocal/ respectively Currently the sqlite build fails because it looks for tclConfig.sh in /usr/<triplet>/lib/tcl8.5/ and doesn't find it there, because dpkg-cross didn't copy the symlink (or original) there. So, the questions is - which of these is the correct fix: 1) make dpkg-cross copy over symlinks even when they point into /usr/share 2) make tcl8.5 put tclConfig.sh in /usr/lib/tcl8.5 instead of /usr/share/tcltk/tcl8.5 3) make sqlite (and similar packages) look in /usr/share/tcltk/tcl8.5 instead of /usr/lib/tcl8.5 when building I note that the supplied tcl8.5.m4 file actually lists a whole pile of possible locations for the file: for i in `ls -d ${libdir} 2>/dev/null` \ `ls -d ${exec_prefix}/lib 2>/dev/null` \ `ls -d ${prefix}/lib 2>/dev/null` \ `ls -d /usr/local/lib 2>/dev/null` \ `ls -d /usr/contrib/lib 2>/dev/null` \ `ls -d /usr/share/tcltk/tk8.5 2>/dev/null` \ `ls -d /usr/lib 2>/dev/null` \ `ls -d /usr/lib64 2>/dev/null` \ However that list doesn't include anything ending in tcl8.5 (i.e /usr/<triplet>/lib/tcl8.5 or /usr/share/tcltk/tcl8.5) and perhaps should by way of 'back-up plan', although I haven't actually looked into the detals of how that is used. Consideration when deciding how to fix this include: Squeeze will be released in a few days with this broken so we will be stuck with the /usr/share/ file location for some time there. Any fix going into Ubuntu should make Natty easily enough. For Multiarch tcl-dev will be a Multiarch:same package (i.e a 'library' package) (despite the name, it contains nothing but headers, libraries and the above config.sh and m4 files), so the two different tclConfig.sh files supplied by the DEB_BUILD_ARCH and DEB_HOST_ARCH packages (when cross-building) will clash and the 2nd package will not be installable. This, it seems to me, is the clinching argument that the correct fix is to change the tcl build to put these files in /usr/lib. This also implies that policy 8.2 needs to be clarified to explain what 'arch-independent' means. Are there other situations which expect to find the tclConfig.sh file in /usr/share? Is so those need considering. Does anyone disgree with the above conclusions? And do people agree that policy 8.2 could be clearer on this point? I've filed a bug containing some of the above discussion and a patch for tcl8.5. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=611650 Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM http://wookware.org/

14 years, 2 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-dev February 2011