Re: Alternative for defconfig
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com wrote: * Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com [100611 19:03]: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Laurent Pinchart laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com wrote: My understanding is that Linus will remove all ARM defconfigs in 2.6.36, unless someone can convince him not to. Huh? I thought he was only threatening to remove them[1]. I don't think he said he was going to do that without any alternative in place. My suggestion[2] was to have minimal defconfigs so that we could do $ cp arch/arm/configs/omap3_beagle_baseconfig .config $ echo | make ARCH=arm oldconfig [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/994194 [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/995412 Sounds like the defconfigs will be going though and we'll use some Kconfig based system that's still open. I believe Russell said he is not taking any more defconfig patches, so we should not merge them either. Anyways, we already have multi-omap mostly working for both mach-omap1 and mach-omap2. Cool, that's a much better approach :) Although it still doesn't solve the problem of default configuration for certain boards... I doubt many people know how to enable USB, audio, and so on. We would probably need some place to share configuration samples and documentation. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Alternative for defconfig
* Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com [100616 10:50]: * Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com [100611 19:03]: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Laurent Pinchart laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com wrote: My understanding is that Linus will remove all ARM defconfigs in 2.6.36, unless someone can convince him not to. Huh? I thought he was only threatening to remove them[1]. I don't think he said he was going to do that without any alternative in place. My suggestion[2] was to have minimal defconfigs so that we could do $ cp arch/arm/configs/omap3_beagle_baseconfig .config $ echo | make ARCH=arm oldconfig [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/994194 [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/995412 Sounds like the defconfigs will be going though and we'll use some Kconfig based system that's still open. I believe Russell said he is not taking any more defconfig patches, so we should not merge them either. Anyways, we already have multi-omap mostly working for both mach-omap1 and mach-omap2. So the remaining things to do are: 1. For mach-omap1, patch entry-macro.S to allow compiling in 7xx, 15xx and 16xx. This can be done in a similar way as for mach-omap2. The only issue is how to detect 7xx from other mach-omap1 omaps. If anybody has a chance to work on this, please go for it! Have not done anything about this. 2. The old omap_cfg_reg mux function needs to disappear for mach-omap2 and use the new mux code instead. I'm currently working on this and should have it ready for testing this week. Got finally rid of these. These are in devel-mux branch on top of the devel-tls branch. 3. To boot both ARMv6 and 7, we need to get rid of CONFIG_HAS_TLS_REG. I already have a patch for that, I'll try to update that during this week. Need to still look at this, but a working version is in devel-tls branch. 4. To make CONFIG_VFP work for both ARMv6 and 7, we need to fix CONFIG_VFPv3 so it boots on ARMv6 too. It currently oopses. Will take a look at this after I'm done with the CONFIG_HAS_TLS_REG. This is another one where some help would be nice. To reproduce, boot Linux on ARMv6 with CONFIG_VFPv3 set. Got this fixed, but need to still test. Also in devel-tls branch. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Alternative for defconfig
* Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com [100611 19:03]: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Laurent Pinchart laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com wrote: My understanding is that Linus will remove all ARM defconfigs in 2.6.36, unless someone can convince him not to. Huh? I thought he was only threatening to remove them[1]. I don't think he said he was going to do that without any alternative in place. My suggestion[2] was to have minimal defconfigs so that we could do $ cp arch/arm/configs/omap3_beagle_baseconfig .config $ echo | make ARCH=arm oldconfig [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/994194 [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/995412 Sounds like the defconfigs will be going though and we'll use some Kconfig based system that's still open. I believe Russell said he is not taking any more defconfig patches, so we should not merge them either. Anyways, we already have multi-omap mostly working for both mach-omap1 and mach-omap2. So the remaining things to do are: 1. For mach-omap1, patch entry-macro.S to allow compiling in 7xx, 15xx and 16xx. This can be done in a similar way as for mach-omap2. The only issue is how to detect 7xx from other mach-omap1 omaps. If anybody has a chance to work on this, please go for it! 2. The old omap_cfg_reg mux function needs to disappear for mach-omap2 and use the new mux code instead. I'm currently working on this and should have it ready for testing this week. 3. To boot both ARMv6 and 7, we need to get rid of CONFIG_HAS_TLS_REG. I already have a patch for that, I'll try to update that during this week. 4. To make CONFIG_VFP work for both ARMv6 and 7, we need to fix CONFIG_VFPv3 so it boots on ARMv6 too. It currently oopses. Will take a look at this after I'm done with the CONFIG_HAS_TLS_REG. This is another one where some help would be nice. To reproduce, boot Linux on ARMv6 with CONFIG_VFPv3 set. 5. After all this works, we can participate on building in multiple ARM platforms :) Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Alternative for defconfig
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Nagarajan, Rajkumar x0133...@ti.com wrote: 1. What is the alternative way of submitting defconfig changes/files to LO? I don't think we have any alternative yet. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: Alternative for defconfig
-Original Message- From: linux-media-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Felipe Contreras Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 8:43 AM To: Nagarajan, Rajkumar Cc: Laurent Pinchart; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; Hiremath, Vaibhav; linux-o...@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Alternative for defconfig On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Nagarajan, Rajkumar x0133...@ti.com wrote: 1. What is the alternative way of submitting defconfig changes/files to LO? I don't think defconfig changes are prohibited now. If I understand correctly, Linus just hates the fact that there is a big percentage of patches for defconfigs. Maybe he wants us to hold these, and better provide higher percentage of actual code changes. What about holding defconfig changes in a separate branch, and just send them for upstream once in a while, specially if there's a big quantity of them in the queue? IMHO, defconfigs are just meant to make us life easier, but changes to them should _never_ be a fix/solution to any problem, and therefore I understand that those aren't a priority over regressions. Regards, Sergio I don't think we have any alternative yet. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Alternative for defconfig
Hi Sergio, On Friday 11 June 2010 16:55:07 Aguirre, Sergio wrote: -Original Message- From: linux-media-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Felipe Contreras Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 8:43 AM To: Nagarajan, Rajkumar Cc: Laurent Pinchart; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; Hiremath, Vaibhav; linux-o...@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Alternative for defconfig On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Nagarajan, Rajkumar wrote: 1. What is the alternative way of submitting defconfig changes/files to LO? I don't think defconfig changes are prohibited now. If I understand correctly, Linus just hates the fact that there is a big percentage of patches for defconfigs. Maybe he wants us to hold these, and better provide higher percentage of actual code changes. What about holding defconfig changes in a separate branch, and just send them for upstream once in a while, specially if there's a big quantity of them in the queue? IMHO, defconfigs are just meant to make us life easier, but changes to them should _never_ be a fix/solution to any problem, and therefore I understand that those aren't a priority over regressions. My understanding is that Linus will remove all ARM defconfigs in 2.6.36, unless someone can convince him not to. Board-specific defconfigs won't be allowed anymore, the number of defconfigs needs to be reduced drastically (ideally to one or two only). -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: Alternative for defconfig
Hi Laurent, -Original Message- From: Laurent Pinchart [mailto:laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:08 AM To: Aguirre, Sergio Cc: Felipe Contreras; Nagarajan, Rajkumar; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; Hiremath, Vaibhav; linux-o...@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Alternative for defconfig Hi Sergio, On Friday 11 June 2010 16:55:07 Aguirre, Sergio wrote: -Original Message- From: linux-media-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Felipe Contreras Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 8:43 AM To: Nagarajan, Rajkumar Cc: Laurent Pinchart; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; Hiremath, Vaibhav; linux-o...@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Alternative for defconfig On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Nagarajan, Rajkumar wrote: 1. What is the alternative way of submitting defconfig changes/files to LO? I don't think defconfig changes are prohibited now. If I understand correctly, Linus just hates the fact that there is a big percentage of patches for defconfigs. Maybe he wants us to hold these, and better provide higher percentage of actual code changes. What about holding defconfig changes in a separate branch, and just send them for upstream once in a while, specially if there's a big quantity of them in the queue? IMHO, defconfigs are just meant to make us life easier, but changes to them should _never_ be a fix/solution to any problem, and therefore I understand that those aren't a priority over regressions. My understanding is that Linus will remove all ARM defconfigs in 2.6.36, unless someone can convince him not to. Board-specific defconfigs won't be allowed anymore, the number of defconfigs needs to be reduced drastically (ideally to one or two only). Hmm, Interesting... We will be now forced to resolve some potential hidden issues with ARM multibuilds (like the ones showing up when creating the omap3_defconfig), and that's a great motivation to nail down all possible portability problems. /me likes that :) Regards, Sergio -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: Alternative for defconfig
Laurent Pinchart wrote: On Friday 11 June 2010 16:55:07 Aguirre, Sergio wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Nagarajan, Rajkumar wrote: 1. What is the alternative way of submitting defconfig changes/files to LO? I don't think defconfig changes are prohibited now. If I understand correctly, Linus just hates the fact that there is a big percentage of patches for defconfigs. Maybe he wants us to hold these, and better provide higher percentage of actual code changes. What about holding defconfig changes in a separate branch, and just send them for upstream once in a while, specially if there's a big quantity of them in the queue? IMHO, defconfigs are just meant to make us life easier, but changes to them should _never_ be a fix/solution to any problem, and therefore I understand that those aren't a priority over regressions. My understanding is that Linus will remove all ARM defconfigs in 2.6.36, unless someone can convince him not to. Board-specific defconfigs won't be allowed anymore, the number of defconfigs needs to be reduced drastically (ideally to one or two only). There is some good work going on on the linux-arm-kernel mailing list to cut down heavily the ARM defconfigs. Would be good to join that discussion. For OMAP, I suppose maintaining omap1_defconfig and omap3_defconfig would suffice to cover all OMAPs? - Anand -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Alternative for defconfig
Hi Anand, On Friday 11 June 2010 17:14:19 Gadiyar, Anand wrote: Laurent Pinchart wrote: On Friday 11 June 2010 16:55:07 Aguirre, Sergio wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Nagarajan, Rajkumar wrote: 1. What is the alternative way of submitting defconfig changes/files to LO? I don't think defconfig changes are prohibited now. If I understand correctly, Linus just hates the fact that there is a big percentage of patches for defconfigs. Maybe he wants us to hold these, and better provide higher percentage of actual code changes. What about holding defconfig changes in a separate branch, and just send them for upstream once in a while, specially if there's a big quantity of them in the queue? IMHO, defconfigs are just meant to make us life easier, but changes to them should _never_ be a fix/solution to any problem, and therefore I understand that those aren't a priority over regressions. My understanding is that Linus will remove all ARM defconfigs in 2.6.36, unless someone can convince him not to. Board-specific defconfigs won't be allowed anymore, the number of defconfigs needs to be reduced drastically (ideally to one or two only). There is some good work going on on the linux-arm-kernel mailing list to cut down heavily the ARM defconfigs. Would be good to join that discussion. For OMAP, I suppose maintaining omap1_defconfig and omap3_defconfig would suffice to cover all OMAPs? I'm not sure what the exact roadmap will be. Linus is complaining about the defconfig changes taking up too much of the diffstat. I don't know if he will accept patches to solve the problem gradually, or if he will just remove all defconfig files in 2.6.36. In any case, all changes that make it possible to built more machine types and platform types in the same kernel are a step in the right direction. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: Alternative for defconfig
-Original Message- From: Laurent Pinchart [mailto:laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:26 AM To: Gadiyar, Anand Cc: Aguirre, Sergio; Felipe Contreras; Nagarajan, Rajkumar; linux- me...@vger.kernel.org; Hiremath, Vaibhav; linux-o...@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Alternative for defconfig Hi Anand, On Friday 11 June 2010 17:14:19 Gadiyar, Anand wrote: Laurent Pinchart wrote: On Friday 11 June 2010 16:55:07 Aguirre, Sergio wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Nagarajan, Rajkumar wrote: 1. What is the alternative way of submitting defconfig changes/files to LO? I don't think defconfig changes are prohibited now. If I understand correctly, Linus just hates the fact that there is a big percentage of patches for defconfigs. Maybe he wants us to hold these, and better provide higher percentage of actual code changes. What about holding defconfig changes in a separate branch, and just send them for upstream once in a while, specially if there's a big quantity of them in the queue? IMHO, defconfigs are just meant to make us life easier, but changes to them should _never_ be a fix/solution to any problem, and therefore I understand that those aren't a priority over regressions. My understanding is that Linus will remove all ARM defconfigs in 2.6.36, unless someone can convince him not to. Board-specific defconfigs won't be allowed anymore, the number of defconfigs needs to be reduced drastically (ideally to one or two only). There is some good work going on on the linux-arm-kernel mailing list to cut down heavily the ARM defconfigs. Would be good to join that discussion. For OMAP, I suppose maintaining omap1_defconfig and omap3_defconfig would suffice to cover all OMAPs? I'm not sure what the exact roadmap will be. Linus is complaining about the defconfig changes taking up too much of the diffstat. I don't know if he will accept patches to solve the problem gradually, or if he will just remove all defconfig files in 2.6.36. In any case, all changes that make it possible to built more machine types and platform types in the same kernel are a step in the right direction. I definitely think that one important step to achieve a multi platform build is to detect the minimal arm_defconfig first, and then (most importantly IMHO) proceed with trying to generate kernel modules of almost all peripherals. Many boards tend to be tested with just monolithic single-platform kernels, and making things modular hasn't been addressed at all in some drivers (old OMAP DSS code, for example). Regards, Sergio -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Alternative for defconfig
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Laurent Pinchart laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com wrote: My understanding is that Linus will remove all ARM defconfigs in 2.6.36, unless someone can convince him not to. Huh? I thought he was only threatening to remove them[1]. I don't think he said he was going to do that without any alternative in place. My suggestion[2] was to have minimal defconfigs so that we could do $ cp arch/arm/configs/omap3_beagle_baseconfig .config $ echo | make ARCH=arm oldconfig [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/994194 [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/995412 -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
