linaro-dev

linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org

4332 discussions

[Linaro-dev] Contributing in development.

by pankaj chauhan

All, I joined few days back with intention to contribute in development. I have experience in device drivers and base port for Arm based SOCs. But i am not sure where to start here in lenaro! I have access to A9 dual core based boards at work, and if necessary i'll arrange beagle board. Are we going to have some formal start of project emails on the list? how would i know which areas require contribution from volunteers? Thanks and regards, pankaj

15 years

[Linaro-dev] ALSA SoC device tree bindings

by Jeremy Kerr

Hi all, From some discussions at the previous Ubuntu Developer Summit, I've put up a page on the devicetree.org wiki with the ultimate goal of describing device tree bindings for ALSA System on Chip devices. At this stage, we're just looking at how to structure device in the device tree. The bindings for specific devices will come as required (ie, as we add device tree support for them). So - if you're interested in the ALSA and/or device tree areas, please take a look at the notes from UDS: http://devicetree.org/SoC_Audio - if you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know, or add to the page (or the discussion for the page). I intend for this document to become a more formal specification, but we still have a way to go before that happens. If you'd like an introduction to device trees, Grant has a good walkthrough- style document at: http://devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage Cheers, Jeremy

15 years

[Linaro-dev] Fwd: Contributing in development.

by Jamie Bennett

Forwarding to the list as I hit reply rather than reply all. Begin forwarded message: > From: Jamie Bennett <jamie.bennett(a)linaro.org> > Date: 25 June 2010 11:15:32 GMT+01:00 > To: JD Zheng <entropy.zjd(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Linaro-dev] Contributing in development. > > On 24 Jun 2010, at 17:47, JD Zheng <entropy.zjd(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Guys join us @ #linaro on freenode irc for more interactive and useful hints. >> >> >> Considering time difference and people has to work during the day, IRC isn't convenient. I'd like to see at least some summary in maillist. Anyway, this is just suggestion. > > We are a very transparent initiative and it's easy to find an area in which you are interested. The wiki page at https://wiki.linaro.org/Releases/ lists the work being concentrated on (blueprints) and what the goals of the next release, 10.11 are (technical requirements). Another page, https://wiki.linaro.org/EngineeringUnits/ details the various groups and their areas of interest. In fact the wiki is a great source of information. As mentioned before there is also irc, mailing lists and the website at www.linaro.org (and many of the team also have personal blogs). > > After looking at the above, if you need more direction, the please just ask. > >> Thanks, >> Jiandong Regards, Jamie.

15 years

[Linaro-dev] Trusted computing and TrustZone Adaptation

by Shaz

Dear lists, We are designing some work based on our existing implementation of secure computing on mobile devices but I wanted to get an idea what has been planned by the base system designers regarding trustzone security feature available to modern ARM architectures. Apart from trustzone trusted computing features can still exist so not sure what is the progress on your end. I have added some preliminary ideas on Linaro/Ubuntu lauchpad for trusted computing as well but before actually taking it serious for full design based on existing research and respectively possible implementation steps we would like to confirm with you regarding any plans that I might not contradict or possibly add synergy to them. MeeGo security framework is a bit different than ours with respect to MAC as we use SELinux and possibly Tomoyo as they can take care of complex and simple scenarios respectively. Thanks. -- Shaz

15 years

[Linaro-dev] Universal ARM bringup image

by Peter Pearse

Hi I'm posting this to see if anyone, especially from the Linaro partners, sees a use for a universal ARM bringup image. This small (<64MB ) flasheable image would contain an FDT enabled boot loader and kernel. It would contain (at least) drivers for common UARTs, network chips & USB devices. This would allow a prototype board to be brought to the stage where the standard Ubuntu USB installer image could be booted, without the effort of a full boot loader & kernel port. Only the device tree for the new platform would need to be developed initially, allowing the full ports to be developed alongside the initial debugging of the prototype platform. Regards Peter Pearse

15 years

Re: [Linaro-dev] Target Boards for image verification

by Marcin Juszkiewicz

Dnia czwartek, 24 czerwca 2010 o 07:37:47 Tarek El-Sherbiny napisał(a): > The FriendlyARM is a cheep and powerful kit. It comes with LCD and all the > other stuff. It is also Linux preloaded. But it uses s3c2440 which is armv4t. Linaro concentrate on armv7 cpus. And yes - FriendlyARM boards are nice and cheap way to get into embedded Linux. Regards, -- JID: hrw(a)jabber.org Website: http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz

15 years

[Linaro-dev] Target Boards for image verification

by Amit Kucheria

Hi all, In order to verify the images generated by Linaro, we'll have to start the verification on real platforms. As of now, I am proposing that we test on _atleast_ the boards in the following table. These boards were chosen for their general availability[1] to us inside Linaro, to external developers and their cost. Also, I've only listed Cortex-A8/A9-based boards. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SoC Board name Comments ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TI OMAP3 Beagleboard C2, C3, C4 Very popular TI OMAP3 Beagleboard XM 512Mb RAM, 37xx, limited availability for now Freescale i.MX51 Babbage2.5, Babbage3.0 Public availability to be checked TI OMAP4 Panda Public availability 4Q? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please feel free to suggest other boards that might help the community get involved in testing, verification and development of Linaro. I can't promise that we'll include all of them in our test setup, but where possible we'll try to enable support for these boards (in the kernel, for example) so that developers can use the pre-built images with some modifications on their favourite boards. One other factor we need to worry about is enablement of the platform in the mainline kernel. Some boards such as the Freescale Babbage have only the very basic HW support in mainline currently. So we will have to enable enough of the platform in mainline to make it worthwhile testing on that board. Regards, Amit [1] HW Availability is an ongoing problem and we're trying to do the best with what we already have or will definitely have in the near future.

15 years

[Linaro-dev] First "Linaro kernel merge result of the moment" published

by Nicolas Pitre

I just made available the first Linaro kernel merge result at the following location: http://git.linaro.org/?p=linux/arm_next.git;a=summary [ The native Git protocol for cloning is not operational at the moment so maybe announcing this now will increase pressure for having this fixed more quickly. ] The process we're experimenting at the moment for the production of this kernel is described on this page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Specs/M/ARMKernelVersionAlignment Right now, this is a merge of: - mainline 2.6.35-rc3 - Maverick Ubuntu-2.6.35-3.4 - RMK's ARM devel branch - Catalin Marinas' ARM patches from git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cmarinas/linux-2.6-cm.git - and the kernel security features for ARM I've been working on lately (stack protector, address space layout randomization) There is no extra support for specific hardware target beyond what's already included with the above. I expect this will change the next time this tree is rebuilt (let me know if you have a tree that should be considered for inclusion) but this initial announcement should at least get the ball rolling. Further improvements being considered: - Include a file with details about what trees and versions were included in the merge. - Add references to each release with that info on a wiki page. If you have any questions or comment please don't hesitate to ask me. Nicolas

15 years

[Linaro-dev] Linaro patch regression review

by Loïc Minier

Hey Matthias sent a review of the changes he had to do to the toolchain packaging in Ubuntu to apply the Linaro diff we sent him, and reported a list of testsuite results changes. Instead of tracking this over email, I moved the results to https://wiki.linaro.org/Toolchain/UbuntuRegressions and would like us to track progress there. Ultimately, we should file bug reports but the place where we file them differs depending on the action. Some might be Linaro GCC bugs, some might be FSF GCC bugs, some might be Ubuntu packaging bugs etc. I did not finish to merge all feedback from CS folks in there, so it is still incomplete; Andrew is currently fixing some of that -- thanks Andrew! Thanks! -- Loïc Minier

15 years

[Linaro-dev] The minutes from this weeks kernel consolidation working group meeting

by Jamie Bennett

Hi, A summary from this weeks kernel consolidation working group meeting is now available. It can be viewed online at the following link and is reproduced below. https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/KernelConsolidation/Meetings/20100616 A list of all meetings can be found at: https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/KernelConsolidation/Meetings == Wed 16th June 2010 == === Links === * [[WorkingGroups/KernelConsolidation/20100509| Previous meeting]] * [[WorkingGroups/KernelConsolidation/20100623| Next meeting]] === Attendees === * Jamie Bennett ''(JamieBennett)'' * Jeremy Kerr ''(jk)'' * Amit Kucheria ''(amitk)'' * Loic Minier ''(lool)'' * Nicolas Pitre ''(npitre)'' * Matt Waddel ''(mattman)'' === Agenda === * Action points from last meeting. * Blueprint status. . ||<rowbgcolor="#333333" rowstyle="color: white; font-weight: bold;"style="text-align: center;">Blueprint ||<style="text-align: center;">Assignee || ||<^>[[https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/arm-m-using-device-tree-on-ar…]] || Jeremy Kerr || ||<^>[[https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/arm-m-kernel-version-alignmen…]] || Nicolas Pitre || ||<^>[[https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/arm-m-kernel-power-management…]] || Amit Kucheria || ||<^>[[https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/arm-m-missing-security-featur…]] || Dave Martin || ||<^>[[https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/arm-m-debugging-with-oprofile…]] || Will Deacon || ||<^>[[https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/arm-m-alsa-soc-fdt-bindings|a…]] || Grant Likely || ||<^>[[https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-maverick-arm-sing…]] || Eric Miao || ||<^>[[https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/arm-m-versatile-express-a9-en…]] || Matt Waddel || === Action Points === * jk to send out call for help on ALSA device-tree work. * lool will contact Will to discuss if this needs back porting. * lool to talk to IS about getting clone support. * npitre to briefly look into git configuration on IS behalf. lool may need to investigate further if no answer can be found. * npitre to add a text file to the git tree explaining where and what has been merged into the consolidation kernel tree. * npitre to produce a wiki page describing his git kernel tree and the policies and procedures for merging. * amitk to discuss the lack ARM comments so far with slangasek * npitre to use the Linaro tool chain to see if the issue persists. * lool to invite John Rigby to future kernel Work Group calls to discuss the uboot and boot interface in general. === Action Points from Previous Meeting === * jk to put a basic template on devicetree.org to outline this. * jk and jamiebennett to try to get participants to work on this. * npitre to looking into producing a kernel module for testing the kernel stack protector. * amitk to expand the wiki to give more device information and send out and email. * davem to mail Catalin to discuss the flow of kernel patches from ARM to Ubuntu/Linaro. * jk to reignite discussion on the mailing lists. === Minutes === * jk put basic ALSA template up at http://devicetree.org/SoC_Audio, not complete. * [ACTION] jk to send out call for help on ALSA device-tree work. * amitk produced a list of hardware that is interesting to Linaro at this moment in time: * [[https://wiki.linaro.org/Teams/Foundations#Kernel%20consolidation]] * amitk was asked the status of imx51 upstream. * He explained that everything that was rewritten from scratch is now upstream. Base board, USB, i2c, serial, all there. * Some 2.6.36 patches need back-porting to 2.6.35. amitk offered to maintain a tree that npitre to pull from. * jk explained that the device-tree spec had good discussion lately. Most work is done and reviewers are only requesting small changes. * jk needs to talk to npitre about the boot interface. * nitre explained that Russell King is still waiting for a real implementation before he is convinced it is the right way forward. This is coming and has a lot of support. * 2.6.36 could be a target for the device tree work if reviewers comments are favorable, not entirely optimistic though. * Will Deacon has sent patches for hardware break-point support to the mailing list. npitre is in contact with Will about this. * [ACTION] lool will contact Will to discuss if this needs back porting. * npitre said that git.linaro.org cannot currently clone trees. * [ACTION] lool to talk to IS about getting clone support. * [ACTION] npitre to briefly look into git configuration on IS behalf. lool may need to investigate further if no answer can be found. * [ACTION] npitre to add a text file to the git tree explaining where and what has been merged into the consolidation kernel tree. * [ACTION] nitre to produce a wiki page describing his git kernel tree and the policies and procedures for merging. * amitk is waiting on ARM to spec out the kernel power management features they care about so they can be added to the blueprint. lool suggested that amitk should just continue on without the feedback for now to get the review process started, folding in any future comments later. * [ACTION] amitk to discuss the lack ARM comments so far with slangasek * Most of the missing security features have already been implemented by npitre. Some tool chain support is needed to support further work on this spec. For example, everything needs to be compiled with position independent code. * npitre has asked for feedback from ARM on the security test he produced that didn’t produce a result he expected. No response yet as the main contact on this is absent. The tool chain nitre is using is the Code Sourcery one. lool asked if npitre could use the official Linaro tool chain just released. * [ACTION] npitre to use the Linaro tool chain to see if the issue persists. * amitk has a patch for his work items on the security spec. This needs testing before sending to npitre. * The state of uboot was discussed. The team agreed that in the short-term one uboot per SoC would be desirable. * [ACTION] lool to invite John Rigby to future kernel Work Group calls to discuss the uboot and boot interface in general. * jk explained that the ALSA blueprint should probably be considered done now there is partial documentation available as there is little interest from people who could actually do the work this cycle. * mattman has produced a new blueprint: * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/arm-m-versatile-express-a9-en… Regards, Jamie. -- Linaro Release Manager www.linaro.org

15 years

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-dev