• David Rusling (Linaro)
  • Kiko (Linaro)
  • Roger Teague (ARM)
  • Paul McKenney (IBM)

  • Andrea Gallo (ST-Ericsson)
  • Sree Kumar (Samsung)
  • Yves Vandervennet (Freescale)
  • Vijay Pasam (TI)

For the morning only

  • George Grey (Linaro)

For the afternoon only

  • Vijay Pasam (TI)


Guest Participants

  • None

TSC Face to Face Dallas 11th/12th January 2011


  • Set the scene for the work in this cycle
  • Review previous cycle
  • Preview this cycle

Two Day Agenda

  • Tuesday 11th January 2011
    • PM: Advisor's slot
    • Evening: TSC Dinner
  • Wednesday 12th January 2011
    • All day, face to face TSC meeting


Day 2: Wednesday


Chair / Presenter


9.00 - 9.30


Plenary Session

9.30 - 10.00

David Rusling

Office of the CTO - OCTO TSC January 2011.pdf

10.00 - 11.00


Review 10.11 Cycle

11:00 - 12:00


Linaro Company Meeting

12:00 - 1:00

Roger Teague

ARM TSC Considerations

1.00 - 2.00



2.00 - 2.30


Plenary Gathering (Optional)

2.30 - 4.30


Preview 11.05 Cycle

4.30 - 5.30

Scott Bambrough

Hardware Support, Binary Drivers, BSPs and Linaro (Scott B.)

5.30 - 6.00

David Rusling

Outstanding legal requests and AOB

Outstanding Requests

  • LAVA (Infrastructure team, Paul Larson)
    • The Linaro Validation team would like to request TSC approval for a new project - Linaro Automated VAlidation (Lava). The purpose of this project is to create scripts intended for interacting with the automated validation farm we are establishing in Cambridge. This system will support automated scheduling, image deployment, and test execution on hardware supported by Linaro images.

      This is mostly intended as an internal project, but there is nothing in it that should be considered confidential. It is not something intended to be shipped as part of the Linaro images, but it may be of use to members if they want to replicate a similar environment internally. It may also be useful for other open source projects, particularly those who are interested in automated deployment of similar systems for validation purposes.

      If possible, I would like to request approval for GPL 3 license. The reason for this, is because there are some portions of GPL3 licensed code that we have worked on in the past, for projects such as abrek, that would be useful to reuse in this project. GPL terms would consider this a violation if we licensed this new project as EPL.

11.05 Cycle Preview Breakdown

  • 2.30

    Engineering Overview (Kiko)


    Work Tracking (Joey Stanford and Jamie Bennett)


    Graphics (Jesse Barker)


    Toolchain (Michael Hope)


    Kernel (Paul McKenney)


    Power Management (Amit Kucheria)



    Multimedia (Alexander Sack & Sachin Gupta)



    Linaro Platform (Alexander Sack)



    Developer Platform (Steve Langasek)


    Validation (Paul Larson)


    Infrastructure (James Westby)

TSC Member Slots

We've reserved 2 x 1 hour slots, we can make these larger if necessary:

  • Any technical topics you wish to introduce and discuss
  • Any operational topics that you wish to introduce and discuss

Scene Setting

  • Last cycle key events
    • Agreed an overall engineering agenda

    • Built an engineering organisation from scratch

    • Technical Steering Committee created and running

  • Overall theme to this cycle
    • Shortening the time to market

    • widening our engineering base

    • Landing Teams

    • stand alone organisation

Review 10.5 - 10.11

Short slide sets from Dave and Kiko giving their feedback and thoughts on the first cycle:

  • Operational (Kiko)
    • Delivery
    • Organisation (Teams, management etc)
    • Requirements tracking
  • Technical (David)
    • Requirements generation and management
  • Discussion (all) - ask for input before the meeting

Requested input from the TSC members:

  • What went well in the first cycle?
  • What could be improved?
  • Suggestions for how we run this and future cycles

NOTE: Specific examples are helpful.

Preview 10.11 - 11.05

  • Operational (Kiko)
    • Organisation - Description of the new engineering organisation

    • Delivery - Description of each team's key deliverables and timetable, presented by the technical leads

    • Hardware and landing teams
    • Requirements tracking - Description and demonstration of the new requirements tracking systems

  • Technical (David)
    • Office of the CTO - Describe the organisation, the aims and goals

    • Requirements generation and management - Describe the process for this cycle (see below)

      • Timetable - List of dates for technical requirements maturity leading up to the May Developer Summit

TSC Technical Requirements Timeline


  • Create a new set of requirements - inputs from community, Office of CTO, Working Groups, members
  • At 15th March, add in requirements that will not complete by end of this cycle
  • Review and refine the requirements in the run up to Linaro@UDS





15th March 2011

Initial requirements input

Embedded Linux community, TSC members, Office of CTO, WGs

23rd March 2011

Team 1 and 2 requirement review

30th March 2011

Team 3 and 4 requirement review

6th April 2011

Team 5 and 6 requirement review

13th April 2011

Team 7 and 8 requirement review

27th April 2011

Coherent requirements

Prioritise requirements across engineering activities

11th May 2011


all discussions owned and scheduled

30th May 2011

Public Plan Review

Week of broadcasting individual team plans and deliverables


  • Grey = new meeting
  • Timings for team requirements review need to match geo-location of team lead
  • We can take new requirements all the way through this cycle, but need to get and keep them coherent and managed as we proceed



  • SMP
    • Handling SWP instruction; not v7 SMP safe
      • Implemented SWP instruction emulation (Leif)
      • Helps weed out legacy mode
        • If we instrument them, we can warn every time SWP is being used
      • Weed out SWP (ARM porting)
      • Linaro GCC 4.5 now emits load and store exclusives (instead of SWP)
        • One piece missing still
      • Libaries need to be updated as well
      • Thumb2 doesn't work with SWP either; so Thumb2 porting works
        • Part of the reason why Qt couldn't build in Thumb2 mode
    • SMP benchmarking
      • Moonbat
      • Memory barriers
    • The next step is OpenCL and considering PM impact
      • Scheduling threads by core capability (domain scheduling)
  • Server
    • Create a server evaluation build?
    • Installable on Linaro supported hardware
    • Openstack + LXC
    • Will provide input into the ARM Porting program
      • Probably find lots of software that doesn't build
    • Pick minimal set of benchmarks to use
      • Core technology
      • Server load
      • Integrate with ABREK
    • Memory regions
      • Would allow us to shut down unused banks
    • Virtualization
      • Moving loads and instances across cores
    • System
      • Server power management profile
  • Boot architecture
    • Interaction between boot agents and kernel
    • Landing Teams and BSP improvements
      • Device tree
      • Boot loaders
    • Device Tree upstreaming
    • UEFI
      • Side discussion
      • Need to define what the Linaro opinion
  • Android
    • Patrik Ryd working with Android platform team
    • Building sustainable build infrastructure
      • EC2 builds
    • Bootstrapping
      • Forward-looking Android topics next
  • Chromium OS (low priority)
    • Tip of development "too unstable"
    • Take stable and use Linaro toolchain items
    • Benchmarking
    • Potential for working on the browser as well
  • Benchmarking and Validation
    • Documenting practices and benchmarking
    • Cuts acrosss all technical and engineering
    • Members have expertise, could they contribute
      • How do we collect TSC input?.
        • ACTION: Yves to share benchmarks he's grokked from Freescale
        • ACTION: Andrea to share benchmarks he's grokked from ST-Ericsson
        • ACTION: specify TSC call about Benchmarking and Validation
    • Open question: power management benchmarking
      • Sachin, Amit working this out in MMWG

10.11 cycle review

  • Andrea (ST-Ericsson)
    • Feedback is that thanks to Linaro, finalizing a bit internal change where kernel activities aren't duplicated within product groups
      • Linaro and Landing Teams helped impact this
    • Appreciates cooperation within Working Groups, and TSC
    • Shares opinion with Thomas; once assignees are hired, it's very hard internally for line managers to have good visibility on what they are working on
      • Line managers are okay with perf evaluation material
      • Linaro newsletter
        • Include links to working group reports
        • Hyperlinks for each item for where to read more about this
    • Assignees in general say that things change on a daily basis
      • Possibly caused by lots of people coming in very late
      • Also stressed by distributed development point
  • Sree (Samsung)
    • Toolchain WG attention
      • Have done evaluation of gcc internally and found it better
      • Trying to use toolchain for many distributions
        • Doing good within LiMo

    • Multimedia WG
      • Not sure about framework
      • ACTION: Specific TSC call to talk about Multimedia framework
      • Not sure about where this is going
    • Kernel WG
      • Also happy with how that is going
    • TSC working as a good forum
  • Paul McKenney (IBM)

    • Frustrating to see high unit volumes and very little influence in the industry as a whole
      • Probably specifically to do with upstream influence
    • If we are serious about ARM going into general computing
      • Can't follow, need to lead
      • Transistor and Tubes fable
        • Size, weight, power requirements drove transistors
        • Published articles in hobbyist magazines talking about transistors
          • Specifically, transistors that were production line rejects
        • NEON and Thumb2 and Mali work necessary
          • x86 already has this; but we should catch up with
        • ARM has lots of stuff that x86 doesn't have
          • How do we exploit those things
  • Yves Vandervennet (Freescale)
    • Linaro forces change to development model
      • Good but hard
    • Puts lots of pressure on development resources
    • Linux team shrunk down to a very few people
    • Working Group feedback
      • Hard time knowing what direction they are going
        • And what they have to do
      • Tasks are not always clear/vague
    • Also agrees with Andrea; hard to see what is going on
      • Doesn't have time to find information from the wiki
      • Unfortunate, since Yves is actually the ambassador for Freescale
  • Roger Teague (ARM)
    • Linaro is working!
      • Versatile Express support was appreciated
      • A9 tools work going
      • Like stable set of releases happening
      • Good relationships building up
    • Visibility
      • Broadcast everything out through the members
      • Up-to-date links would be good
    • People think Linaro "isn't embedded"
      • Providing Android LEBs
    • TSC:
      • Could report from the TSC on what we have done
      • Could consolidate the TSCs message to the rest of Linaro
  • David Rusling (Linaro)
    • CTO Feedback
    • TSC is important, but committees have a really bad reputation
    • Good
      • Commitment from TSC members
      • Interaction with WGs; Gokul example for PM cited
      • Collaboration is constructive and positive
      • Level of technical expertise shared
      • Public Plan Reviews worked well
    • Bad
      • Hard for a single person to represent a single company
      • High level requirements and mapping onto low level work items
      • Too many meetings?
        • Most meetings are a bit boring
    • Changes to make
      • Need an overall strategy and articulate an opinion
      • Requirements need to be continually reviewed
      • TSC Standard, Opinion, Stetement, Recommendation
    • Topics
      • KVM
      • Valgrind
      • Xdeb
      • Qemu
        • QEMU WG proposal?
        • Ramp down GCC work and split into QEMU WG?
      • List of Tools
        • Presentation/Video on major tools
        • Integrated environment?
  • ACTION: Yves to share minimal set of packages for image
  • ACTION: Roger to do the same
  • ACTION: Calendar suggestion for TSC calls

Linaro and BSPs

  • What does hardware support mean in Linaro?
    • Or.. who are the customers of the Linaro BSP?
  • There are 5 basic pieces to a BSP
    • Bootloader
    • Kernel
    • Graphics drivers (Xorg, OpenGLES)
    • Multimedia components (gstreamer, codec shims, swcodecs)
    • Application stack (Java bits for android)
  • What is a BSP
    • The first 4 bits
    • Bootloader, Kernel, Graphics drivers, Multimedia components
  • Do we provide a Linaro BSP?
    • Linaro today offers a one-stop shop for everything
  • Linaro's BSP
    • Uboot
      • Stable tree has support for 3 out of 4 vendors
      • Upstream branch
    • Kernel
      • Landing teams and KWG own this
    • Graphics Technology
      • 3 different GPUs
      • 4 different drivers (two for Mali)
      • Redistribution rights are critical for LEBs
      • Needs the TSC's help in clearing access
    • Multimedia Components
      • Bits are binary/proprietary
      • Lots of divergence in how they are implemented
      • MMWG is tackling this, needs help from vendors as well
  • What will we produce
    • A git tree of uboot
    • A git tree of kernel
    • Redistributable binary package of graphics drivers
    • Redistributable binary package of multimedia components
    • Hardware pack
      • Chrome/Android potentially
  • Who are the customers
    • ODMs and OEMs
      • They will care about the redistribution rights
      • How do we direct them back to you?
    • Your engineering teams
      • They need to pick this up and use it
      • To ensure that we're doing the same thing
  • Support for the code we're releasing
    • How do we get bugfixes for the work we're doing?
  • What we're asking the TSC for
    • Help pushing making binary components available in Linaro
    • How to ensure Landing Team output is reused within vendor SoC
      • One example of how to do this:
        • ST-Ericsson using officially
        • Product teams won't duplicate kernel work
        • As-is license might be possible; Gael pushing for this
        • Kent Olsson is driving this

Other stuff


  • Roger: How do we avoid spreading ourselves too thin?
    • As part of why OCTO?
  • Benchmarking
  • UEFI








Kiko to check with Jesse and Alexander on his knowledge of any plans for graphics change in Honeycomb



Benchmarking information from each member: what's used internally, what sort of measurement is done, sharing policy

Obsoleted, will hold a discussion at an upcoming TSC teleconference


Kiko, David

Consider a blog post and / or a joint statement with LF/Yocto about Linaro


Kiko, David

What Linaro components are appropriate for Yocto?


Rob Coombs

Check on LWN statistics on Kernel, how do we ensure Linaro is mentioned?



Do we want to do more with binary drivers (flash etc)? Could be an action for Joe.



publish the list of packages that can be cross-compiled from our Ubuntu-based images



Propose process for recommendations


David, Kiko

Schedule technical topics for TSC meetings



Circulate list of TSC license requests and approvals to the Linaro board




Share which benchmarks Freescale generally runs on their SoC



Share which benchmarks ST-Ericsson generally runs on their SoC



Schedule a TSC call about Benchmarking



Schedule a TSC call about Multimedia



Share the minimal set of packages used in Freescale image




Share the minimal set of packages used in ARM AEL/ALIP images



Provide a schedule with themed TSC calls



Contact Board about outstanding license requests




Email TSC with pointer to pages


next meeting

TSC/2011-01-12 (last modified 2011-01-31 01:28:08)