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

  • Andrea Gallo (ST-Ericsson)
  • Yves Vandervennet (Freescale)


  • Vijay Pasam (TI)


Guest Participants


  • Review Kernel WG requirements
  • Previous actions
  • AOB


  • Actions from previous meetings
  • hardware baseline is ARMv7A Thumb2, Neon and SMP; all Cortex cores (A5, A8, A9, A15)
  • Priorities
    • Kernel consolidation
    • embedded Linux kernel enhancements
  • Linus - "why don't you guys get together and organise this!"
    • A key part of consolidation
  • Embedded kernel features
    • Reliability, Availability, Servicability (RAS)
  • Priority - general TSC agreement, plus a need to see detail in upstreaming process
    • Sree (Samsung) (agree with the list)
    • Roger (ARM) (agree with the list, but keen to make sure that the process is effective (getting stuff into the mainline kernel))
    • Andrea (ST Ericsson) (apologies have
    • Yves (agree with the list, agree that K1.1 is the most important)
  • Linaro next
    • Confirmed that the tree only contains patches on their way upstream
    • Device Tree is a tolerated exception
  • 2.6.39 is it, we have no control over the kernel release cycle, so may be able to support 2.6.40 if it comes out within the 6 months cycle
  • Priorities
    • Priorities are in terms of how priorities will be fed into the kernel working group
    • Have to be aggressive about leveraging the community (manufacturers and open source)
    • This is the list for the kernel team
    • Low priority means will most probably not happen
    • Medium is 'at risk'
    • Some work items sized, others not (are impossible to size)
  • K1. Kernel consolidation
    • Still discussing K1.1
    • Discuss at ELC and Linaro@UDS
    • Need buy in from Russell, Linus etc
  • Roger, UEFI work looks 'at risk'
    • Punting boot architecture to OCTO
    • K3.2 needed as a priority
    • Bracket K3.1 and K3.2 together as medium?
      • Use Elba for this?
      • Elba availability - 2 boards, 1 in the May time frame
      • In limited numbers currently, will eventually be available commercially
    • ARM request going in to Linaro is that UEFI makes progress
    • ACTION: Figure out how to execute K5.3 (Dave and Kiko).
  • K2.2 - need to demonstrate DT end to end, all the way up the stack
  • K4.2 - is this a single binary (ACTION: Paul McKenney to investigate)

  • K5.2 A15 support
    • ARM work has been pushed upstream
    • LAVA can support models
    • ARM interested in A15 being validated by Linaro
      • Linaro prefers silicon, FPGA and simulation tends to be less efficient (because of the learning curve)
    • ARM wants to show the ARM partners that Linaro has incorporated good A15 support
    • There will be a validated (fast) model, silicon becomes available very shortly after
      • ACTION: How do we integrate the validated model in Linaro's validation flow (LAVA)?
  • UEFI
    • is one of Samsung's priorities, but Samsung is happy with Paul's essentially priorities (K1, K2, K4, K8)
  • What is our position with respect to xfat? Do we rely on third parties for xfat?
    • K7.8, SDXC controller support, standard format for SDXC is xfat.
    • Prototype patches posted in 2009, don't know the upstream status
  • K8.3
    • this is SMP only
    • ACTION: David Rusling investigate how this could be done elsewhere, might be a server topic
  • Resourcing discussion
  • AOB
    • Upstreaming of patches
      • All patches from the landing teams and working groups go both into Linaro next and upstream
      • How far behind upstream is Linaro next?
        • 3 to 6 months (1 to 2 releases), variable
      • Patches get queued in a maintainer tree waiting for a merge window
        • Nico is a maintainer of several subsystems (co-maintainer in most cases)
          • Nico pulls submitted patches into his tree and Linaro next
          • Linus pulls from Nico's maintainer tree, Russell's tree
      • Nobody upstream is pulling patches directly from Linaro next (which is a consolidation tree not a maintainer tree)
      • Patches get submitted to the appropriate maintainer tree (TI tree, Samsung tree etc)
      • K1.1 needs a separate maintainer tree
      • Do the monthly releases change this process?
        • No, but we have to produce trees that have the 'right' patches in them
      • This is the most optimal way to get upstream
        • The process is submission, discussion, conflict resolution







Figure out how to execute K5.3

Dave and Kiko


How do we integrate the validated model in Linaro's validation flow (LAVA)?

Paul Larson


K8.3 investigate how this could be done elsewhere, might be a server topic

David Rusling

Next Meeting

TSC/2011-04-06 (last modified 2011-04-15 18:08:04)