Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Grant Likely]

Updated attendee list:
Confirmed:
1) Nicolas Pitre - arm-soc tree maintainer
2) Arnd Bergmann - arm-soc tree maintainer
3) Olof Johansson - tegra maintainer
4) David Brown
5) Marek Vasut - Various pxa boards maintainer
6) Ohad Ben-Cohen
7) Sascha Hauer
8) Paul Walmsley
9) Catalin Marinas
10) Kukjin Kim - Samsung SoC maintainer
11) Kyungmin Park - Samsung SoC maintainer
12) Mark Brown - ASoC maintainer
13) Grant Likely

Waiting for confirmation:
14) Pavel Machek
15) Eric Miao - pxa/mmp maintainer
16) Haojian Zhuang - pxa/mmp maintainer
17) Nicolas Ferre - Atmel maintainer
18) Will Deacon - ARM engineer

Nominates, but haven't responded personally:
19) Russell King
20) Lennert Buytenhek
21) Marc Zyngier
22) Linus Walleji

We're pretty close to filling up.  Is there anyone else I should include?

Agenda proposals (Thanks to Nicolas and Olof):
- DT bindings for GPIO and pin mux
- the pin mux subsystem from linusw (especially if it is still RFC by
 then)
- progress with the single zImage work
- presentation/status of the DMA and memory management work wrt CMA
 (some SOC specific hacks should go away once this is available)
- DT porting progress
- boot architecture status
- Report from Arnd on experiences from first arm-soc merge window
  - what worked well and where's room for improvement?
  - Any particular SoC workflow that should be tuned to make his life easier?
  - Where are the gaps where he needs help right now?
  - How did it work out for the SoC maintainers?

Still accepting more proposals.  Send me the topics you are burning to discuss.

g.

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It looks like there is definitely enough interest on this, so we're
> going ahead and scheduling a workshop for the first day of kernel
> summit. ?Space is limited however, so I need to assemble a confirmed
> attendee list. ?It looks like we've got room for about two dozen
> people.
>
> So, if you are an ARM subarchitecture maintainer (or generally
> involved with ARM maintainership) and you want to attend, then please
> email me ASAP. ?Attendance confirmation will be first come, first
> serve. ?Here is the list of people that I'm holding a space for
> because they have already expressed interest. ?If you are on this list
> then please let me know in the next week whether or not you are still
> able to attend. ?Also, if you think of anyone who really needs to be
> there, but isn't on this list, then email me to nominate them. ?I'll
> add any nominations to this list and contact them individually.
>
> Nicolas Pitre
> Arnd Bergmann
> Olof Johansson
> Eric Miao
> David Brown
> Mark Vasut
> Ohad Ben-Cohen
> Sascha Hauer
> Paul Walmsley
> Pavel Machek
> Catalin Marinas
>
> I'm also collecting a topic list, but I'll email that out later when
> I've had a chance to collate it. ?Please continue to send me topics
> you would like to see on the agenda.
>
> g.
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
>> As many of you know, Kernel Summit this year will be a three day
>> event, with the first day dedicated to kernel subsystem workshops[1].
>> Since Kernel Summit will be co-located with ELC-E which my arm
>> developers will be attending, it is the perfect opportunity to have an
>> ARM maintainers meeting. ?Arnd Bergmann, Nicolas Pitre and I talked
>> about it at Linaro Connect this past week and we're going to work on
>> organising something.
>>
>> However, for it to be successful we need to put together a draft
>> agenda quickly. ?Kernel summit is only 80 days away, and people need
>> time to get approval and organise travel. ?So, if you're interested in
>> attending, then we need to know ASAP. ?Reply to this email if you're
>> interested.
>>
>> We also need proposals for discussion topics relevant to ARM,
>> particularly if it relates to all arm sub-architectures or the
>> maintainership process. ?I'll collate the list of proposals that I
>> receive and try to put together an agenda.
>>
>> As already mentioned, the first day (Sunday Oct 23) is dedicated to
>> workshops, and I think that most of the discussion topics will be
>> covered on that day. ?The invite-only core developers meeting is on
>> the second day (Oct 24) which a few people will be involved with. ?For
>> the rest of the group I'm considering organizing it as a hacking day
>> to start sorting out problems identified/discussed on the first day.
>> The third and final day will be plenary sessions open to participants
>> of all workshops.
>>
>> [1] https://sites.google.com/site/kernelsummit2011/announcements/kickoff
>>
>> Cheers,
>> g.
>>
>> --
>> Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
>> Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
> Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
>



-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Igor Grinberg]

On 08/30/11 09:00, Grant Likely wrote:
> Updated attendee list:
> Confirmed:
> 1) Nicolas Pitre - arm-soc tree maintainer
> 2) Arnd Bergmann - arm-soc tree maintainer
> 3) Olof Johansson - tegra maintainer
> 4) David Brown
> 5) Marek Vasut - Various pxa boards maintainer
> 6) Ohad Ben-Cohen
> 7) Sascha Hauer
> 8) Paul Walmsley
> 9) Catalin Marinas
> 10) Kukjin Kim - Samsung SoC maintainer
> 11) Kyungmin Park - Samsung SoC maintainer
> 12) Mark Brown - ASoC maintainer
> 13) Grant Likely
> 
> Waiting for confirmation:
> 14) Pavel Machek
> 15) Eric Miao - pxa/mmp maintainer
> 16) Haojian Zhuang - pxa/mmp maintainer
> 17) Nicolas Ferre - Atmel maintainer
> 18) Will Deacon - ARM engineer
> 
> Nominates, but haven't responded personally:
> 19) Russell King
> 20) Lennert Buytenhek
> 21) Marc Zyngier
> 22) Linus Walleji
> 
> We're pretty close to filling up.  Is there anyone else I should include?

Grant,

I've already asked in [1], but haven't got any response from you...
So once again, I'd like to attend, is there anything special I need to do?
I'm maintaining pxa, omap and also armada boards soon.


[1] - http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg137633.html


-- 
Regards,
Igor.

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Grant Likely]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 09:27:39AM +0300, Igor Grinberg wrote:
> On 08/30/11 09:00, Grant Likely wrote:
> > Updated attendee list:
> > Confirmed:
> > 1) Nicolas Pitre - arm-soc tree maintainer
> > 2) Arnd Bergmann - arm-soc tree maintainer
> > 3) Olof Johansson - tegra maintainer
> > 4) David Brown
> > 5) Marek Vasut - Various pxa boards maintainer
> > 6) Ohad Ben-Cohen
> > 7) Sascha Hauer
> > 8) Paul Walmsley
> > 9) Catalin Marinas
> > 10) Kukjin Kim - Samsung SoC maintainer
> > 11) Kyungmin Park - Samsung SoC maintainer
> > 12) Mark Brown - ASoC maintainer
> > 13) Grant Likely
> > 
> > Waiting for confirmation:
> > 14) Pavel Machek
> > 15) Eric Miao - pxa/mmp maintainer
> > 16) Haojian Zhuang - pxa/mmp maintainer
> > 17) Nicolas Ferre - Atmel maintainer
> > 18) Will Deacon - ARM engineer
> > 
> > Nominates, but haven't responded personally:
> > 19) Russell King
> > 20) Lennert Buytenhek
> > 21) Marc Zyngier
> > 22) Linus Walleji
> > 
> > We're pretty close to filling up.  Is there anyone else I should include?
> 
> Grant,
> 
> I've already asked in [1], but haven't got any response from you...

/technically/ you didn't actually ask a question in that email.  :-)

> So once again, I'd like to attend, is there anything special I need to do?
> I'm maintaining pxa, omap and also armada boards soon.

Sorry, I missed your name.  I'll add you to the list.  I haven't
created any rules about who can attend and who cannot other than first
come, first served, and I'm capping it at 24 people which is already
getting a little large for good discussion to happen.  I also reserve
the right to make exceptions to the above when needed, but I prefer
not to.

g.

> [1] - http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg137633.html

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Igor Grinberg]

On 08/30/11 16:44, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 09:27:39AM +0300, Igor Grinberg wrote:
>> On 08/30/11 09:00, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> Updated attendee list:
>>> Confirmed:
>>> 1) Nicolas Pitre - arm-soc tree maintainer
>>> 2) Arnd Bergmann - arm-soc tree maintainer
>>> 3) Olof Johansson - tegra maintainer
>>> 4) David Brown
>>> 5) Marek Vasut - Various pxa boards maintainer
>>> 6) Ohad Ben-Cohen
>>> 7) Sascha Hauer
>>> 8) Paul Walmsley
>>> 9) Catalin Marinas
>>> 10) Kukjin Kim - Samsung SoC maintainer
>>> 11) Kyungmin Park - Samsung SoC maintainer
>>> 12) Mark Brown - ASoC maintainer
>>> 13) Grant Likely
>>>
>>> Waiting for confirmation:
>>> 14) Pavel Machek
>>> 15) Eric Miao - pxa/mmp maintainer
>>> 16) Haojian Zhuang - pxa/mmp maintainer
>>> 17) Nicolas Ferre - Atmel maintainer
>>> 18) Will Deacon - ARM engineer
>>>
>>> Nominates, but haven't responded personally:
>>> 19) Russell King
>>> 20) Lennert Buytenhek
>>> 21) Marc Zyngier
>>> 22) Linus Walleji
>>>
>>> We're pretty close to filling up.  Is there anyone else I should include?
>>
>> Grant,
>>
>> I've already asked in [1], but haven't got any response from you...
> 
> /technically/ you didn't actually ask a question in that email.  :-)

:) right, that was not a question...

> 
>> So once again, I'd like to attend, is there anything special I need to do?
>> I'm maintaining pxa, omap and also armada boards soon.
> 
> Sorry, I missed your name.  I'll add you to the list.  I haven't
> created any rules about who can attend and who cannot other than first
> come, first served, and I'm capping it at 24 people which is already
> getting a little large for good discussion to happen.  I also reserve
> the right to make exceptions to the above when needed, but I prefer
> not to.

Thanks a lot!


-- 
Regards,
Igor.

[Ksummit-2011-discuss] Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Chris Ball]

Hi Grant,

On Tue, Aug 30 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
> Sorry, I missed your name.  I'll add you to the list.  I haven't
> created any rules about who can attend and who cannot other than first
> come, first served, and I'm capping it at 24 people which is already
> getting a little large for good discussion to happen.  I also reserve
> the right to make exceptions to the above when needed, but I prefer
> not to.

I'd be happy to participate if it's not taking space away from anyone
with more regular interaction with arch maintainership; I'm interested
in most of the items on the agenda as they relate to OLPC and MMC, and
in spending more time helping out.

Thanks,

- Chris.
-- 
Chris Ball   <cjb@laptop.org>   <http://printf.net/>
One Laptop Per Child

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Nicolas Ferre]

Hi Grant,

Le 30/08/2011 08:00, Grant Likely :
> Updated attendee list:
> Confirmed:
> 1) Nicolas Pitre - arm-soc tree maintainer
> 2) Arnd Bergmann - arm-soc tree maintainer
> 3) Olof Johansson - tegra maintainer
> 4) David Brown
> 5) Marek Vasut - Various pxa boards maintainer
> 6) Ohad Ben-Cohen
> 7) Sascha Hauer
> 8) Paul Walmsley
> 9) Catalin Marinas
> 10) Kukjin Kim - Samsung SoC maintainer
> 11) Kyungmin Park - Samsung SoC maintainer
> 12) Mark Brown - ASoC maintainer
> 13) Grant Likely
> 
> Waiting for confirmation:
> 14) Pavel Machek
> 15) Eric Miao - pxa/mmp maintainer
> 16) Haojian Zhuang - pxa/mmp maintainer
> 17) Nicolas Ferre - Atmel maintainer

I can confirm today that I will come.

See all of you in Prague!


> 18) Will Deacon - ARM engineer
> 
> Nominates, but haven't responded personally:
> 19) Russell King
> 20) Lennert Buytenhek
> 21) Marc Zyngier
> 22) Linus Walleji
> 
> We're pretty close to filling up.  Is there anyone else I should include?

[..]

Best regards,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Wolfram Sang]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:00:16AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> Updated attendee list:

> 7) Sascha Hauer

... imx maintainer


I could be there for the hacking day after the discussion day if some
space is still left then. I assume we can decide this more on a
short-term scale :)

Thanks for doing this.

   Wolfram

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20110830/d6c028c7/attachment.sig>

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[David Brown]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:00:16AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:

> 4) David Brown

  ... MSM soc maintainer

David

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Paul Walmsley]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Grant Likely wrote:

> We're pretty close to filling up.  Is there anyone else I should 
> include?

Please consider:
- Tony Lindgren, the primary OMAP maintainer; 
- Kevin Hilman, who like me also maintains some of the OMAP code;
- Beno?t Cousson, who knows the OMAP hardware quite well and is dealing 
  with DT issues,
- and Igor Grinberg, who has board integration experience for multiple 
  SoCs and therefore is well-placed to address some of the consolidation 
  issues


- Paul

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Olof Johansson]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Grant Likely
<grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
> Updated attendee list:
> Confirmed:
> 1) Nicolas Pitre - arm-soc tree maintainer
> 2) Arnd Bergmann - arm-soc tree maintainer
> 3) Olof Johansson - tegra maintainer
> 4) David Brown
> 5) Marek Vasut - Various pxa boards maintainer
> 6) Ohad Ben-Cohen
> 7) Sascha Hauer
> 8) Paul Walmsley
> 9) Catalin Marinas
> 10) Kukjin Kim - Samsung SoC maintainer
> 11) Kyungmin Park - Samsung SoC maintainer
> 12) Mark Brown - ASoC maintainer
> 13) Grant Likely
>
> Waiting for confirmation:
> 14) Pavel Machek
> 15) Eric Miao - pxa/mmp maintainer
> 16) Haojian Zhuang - pxa/mmp maintainer
> 17) Nicolas Ferre - Atmel maintainer
> 18) Will Deacon - ARM engineer
>
> Nominates, but haven't responded personally:
> 19) Russell King
> 20) Lennert Buytenhek
> 21) Marc Zyngier
> 22) Linus Walleji
>
> We're pretty close to filling up. ?Is there anyone else I should include?

I've asked Stephen Warren from Nvidia to attend if he can --
especially given the pinmux topics below.

-Olof

>
> Agenda proposals (Thanks to Nicolas and Olof):
> - DT bindings for GPIO and pin mux
> - the pin mux subsystem from linusw (especially if it is still RFC by
> ?then)
> - progress with the single zImage work
> - presentation/status of the DMA and memory management work wrt CMA
> ?(some SOC specific hacks should go away once this is available)
> - DT porting progress
> - boot architecture status
> - Report from Arnd on experiences from first arm-soc merge window
> ?- what worked well and where's room for improvement?
> ?- Any particular SoC workflow that should be tuned to make his life easier?
> ?- Where are the gaps where he needs help right now?
> ?- How did it work out for the SoC maintainers?
>
> Still accepting more proposals. ?Send me the topics you are burning to discuss.

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Stephen Warren]

Olof Johansson wrote at Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:51 PM:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Grant Likely
> <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
> > Updated attendee list:
...
> > We're pretty close to filling up. ?Is there anyone else I should include?
> 
> I've asked Stephen Warren from Nvidia to attend if he can --
> especially given the pinmux topics below.

Yes, I'm able to attend if there's a slot left.

Thanks.

-- 
nvpublic

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Marek Szyprowski]

Hello,

On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:51 PM Olof Johansson wrote:

(snipped)

> > Agenda proposals (Thanks to Nicolas and Olof):
> > - DT bindings for GPIO and pin mux
> > - the pin mux subsystem from linusw (especially if it is still RFC by
> > ?then)
> > - progress with the single zImage work
> > - presentation/status of the DMA and memory management work wrt CMA
> > ?(some SOC specific hacks should go away once this is available)

I going to attend V4L2 Media Workshop at Kernel Summit, but I can pop in for
discussion or update of CMA status.

> > - DT porting progress
> > - boot architecture status
> > - Report from Arnd on experiences from first arm-soc merge window
> > ?- what worked well and where's room for improvement?
> > ?- Any particular SoC workflow that should be tuned to make his life easier?
> > ?- Where are the gaps where he needs help right now?
> > ?- How did it work out for the SoC maintainers?
> >
> > Still accepting more proposals. ?Send me the topics you are burning to discuss.

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski
Samsung Poland R&D Center

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> Waiting for confirmation:
> 14) Pavel Machek

Yes, I'd like to come. "Random zaurus hacker"? :-).
								Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Marek Vasut]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 01:10:18 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > Waiting for confirmation:
> > 14) Pavel Machek
> 
> Yes, I'd like to come. "Random zaurus hacker"? :-).
> 								Pavel

Still, I don't understand why it's titled "at Kernel Summit 2011". Shouldn't 
that be "ELCE" or "LinuxCon" ?

Cheers

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Bryan Wu]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 01:10:18 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> > Waiting for confirmation:
>> > 14) Pavel Machek
>>
>> Yes, I'd like to come. "Random zaurus hacker"? :-).
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Pavel
>
> Still, I don't understand why it's titled "at Kernel Summit 2011". Shouldn't
> that be "ELCE" or "LinuxCon" ?
>

ELC-E 2011 and Kernel summit 2011 will happen in the same week and in
the same place of Prague.

Thanks,
-- 
Bryan Wu <bryan.wu@canonical.com>
Kernel Developer ? ?+86.138-1617-6545 Mobile
Ubuntu Kernel Team
Canonical Ltd. ? ? ?www.canonical.com
Ubuntu - Linux for human beings | www.ubuntu.com

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Marek Vasut]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 04:31:58 AM Bryan Wu wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 01:10:18 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >> 
> >> > Waiting for confirmation:
> >> > 14) Pavel Machek
> >> 
> >> Yes, I'd like to come. "Random zaurus hacker"? :-).
> >>                                                               Pavel
> > 
> > Still, I don't understand why it's titled "at Kernel Summit 2011".
> > Shouldn't that be "ELCE" or "LinuxCon" ?
> 
> ELC-E 2011 and Kernel summit 2011 will happen in the same week and in
> the same place of Prague.

Ok, anyway, me and Pavel Machek are both local so I guess we can even crash for 
some beer in the evening.

Cheers!

> 
> Thanks,

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Bryan Wu]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 04:31:58 AM Bryan Wu wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 01:10:18 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> > Waiting for confirmation:
>> >> > 14) Pavel Machek
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I'd like to come. "Random zaurus hacker"? :-).
>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Pavel
>> >
>> > Still, I don't understand why it's titled "at Kernel Summit 2011".
>> > Shouldn't that be "ELCE" or "LinuxCon" ?
>>
>> ELC-E 2011 and Kernel summit 2011 will happen in the same week and in
>> the same place of Prague.
>
> Ok, anyway, me and Pavel Machek are both local so I guess we can even crash for
> some beer in the evening.
>

Very nice beer, dinner and castle tour last time. Thanks man.

Have fun this time.
-Bryan

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Grant Likely]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 01:10:18 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> > Waiting for confirmation:
>> > 14) Pavel Machek
>>
>> Yes, I'd like to come. "Random zaurus hacker"? :-).
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Pavel
>
> Still, I don't understand why it's titled "at Kernel Summit 2011". Shouldn't
> that be "ELCE" or "LinuxCon" ?

This is actually a kernel summit workshop.  For ksummit, 1st day is
workshops, 2nd day is the core-developer meeting and an ARM hacking
sprint.  3rd day is for presentations which all attendees (workshop
and core developers) are invited to.  ELCE & LinuxCon is immediately
after ksummit.

g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Bryan Wu]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
> Updated attendee list:
> Confirmed:
> 1) Nicolas Pitre - arm-soc tree maintainer
> 2) Arnd Bergmann - arm-soc tree maintainer
> 3) Olof Johansson - tegra maintainer
> 4) David Brown
> 5) Marek Vasut - Various pxa boards maintainer
> 6) Ohad Ben-Cohen
> 7) Sascha Hauer
> 8) Paul Walmsley
> 9) Catalin Marinas
> 10) Kukjin Kim - Samsung SoC maintainer
> 11) Kyungmin Park - Samsung SoC maintainer
> 12) Mark Brown - ASoC maintainer
> 13) Grant Likely
>
> Waiting for confirmation:
> 14) Pavel Machek
> 15) Eric Miao - pxa/mmp maintainer

I guess Eric won't come, since he and I have to attend UDS in US just
the week after ELC-E and KS.

I suggest Barry Song (CSR SoC maintainer) to join the party and share
some information to us when he come back to Shanghai.

Thanks,
-Bryan

> 16) Haojian Zhuang - pxa/mmp maintainer
> 17) Nicolas Ferre - Atmel maintainer
> 18) Will Deacon - ARM engineer
>
> Nominates, but haven't responded personally:
> 19) Russell King
> 20) Lennert Buytenhek
> 21) Marc Zyngier
> 22) Linus Walleji
>
> We're pretty close to filling up. ?Is there anyone else I should include?
>
> Agenda proposals (Thanks to Nicolas and Olof):
> - DT bindings for GPIO and pin mux
> - the pin mux subsystem from linusw (especially if it is still RFC by
> ?then)
> - progress with the single zImage work
> - presentation/status of the DMA and memory management work wrt CMA
> ?(some SOC specific hacks should go away once this is available)
> - DT porting progress
> - boot architecture status
> - Report from Arnd on experiences from first arm-soc merge window
> ?- what worked well and where's room for improvement?
> ?- Any particular SoC workflow that should be tuned to make his life easier?
> ?- Where are the gaps where he needs help right now?
> ?- How did it work out for the SoC maintainers?
>
> Still accepting more proposals. ?Send me the topics you are burning to discuss.
>
> g.
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It looks like there is definitely enough interest on this, so we're
>> going ahead and scheduling a workshop for the first day of kernel
>> summit. ?Space is limited however, so I need to assemble a confirmed
>> attendee list. ?It looks like we've got room for about two dozen
>> people.
>>
>> So, if you are an ARM subarchitecture maintainer (or generally
>> involved with ARM maintainership) and you want to attend, then please
>> email me ASAP. ?Attendance confirmation will be first come, first
>> serve. ?Here is the list of people that I'm holding a space for
>> because they have already expressed interest. ?If you are on this list
>> then please let me know in the next week whether or not you are still
>> able to attend. ?Also, if you think of anyone who really needs to be
>> there, but isn't on this list, then email me to nominate them. ?I'll
>> add any nominations to this list and contact them individually.
>>
>> Nicolas Pitre
>> Arnd Bergmann
>> Olof Johansson
>> Eric Miao
>> David Brown
>> Mark Vasut
>> Ohad Ben-Cohen
>> Sascha Hauer
>> Paul Walmsley
>> Pavel Machek
>> Catalin Marinas
>>
>> I'm also collecting a topic list, but I'll email that out later when
>> I've had a chance to collate it. ?Please continue to send me topics
>> you would like to see on the agenda.
>>
>> g.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
>>> As many of you know, Kernel Summit this year will be a three day
>>> event, with the first day dedicated to kernel subsystem workshops[1].
>>> Since Kernel Summit will be co-located with ELC-E which my arm
>>> developers will be attending, it is the perfect opportunity to have an
>>> ARM maintainers meeting. ?Arnd Bergmann, Nicolas Pitre and I talked
>>> about it at Linaro Connect this past week and we're going to work on
>>> organising something.
>>>
>>> However, for it to be successful we need to put together a draft
>>> agenda quickly. ?Kernel summit is only 80 days away, and people need
>>> time to get approval and organise travel. ?So, if you're interested in
>>> attending, then we need to know ASAP. ?Reply to this email if you're
>>> interested.
>>>
>>> We also need proposals for discussion topics relevant to ARM,
>>> particularly if it relates to all arm sub-architectures or the
>>> maintainership process. ?I'll collate the list of proposals that I
>>> receive and try to put together an agenda.
>>>
>>> As already mentioned, the first day (Sunday Oct 23) is dedicated to
>>> workshops, and I think that most of the discussion topics will be
>>> covered on that day. ?The invite-only core developers meeting is on
>>> the second day (Oct 24) which a few people will be involved with. ?For
>>> the rest of the group I'm considering organizing it as a hacking day
>>> to start sorting out problems identified/discussed on the first day.
>>> The third and final day will be plenary sessions open to participants
>>> of all workshops.
>>>
>>> [1] https://sites.google.com/site/kernelsummit2011/announcements/kickoff
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> g.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
>>> Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
>> Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
> Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Marek Vasut]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 04:57:58 AM Bryan Wu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> 
wrote:
> > Updated attendee list:
> > Confirmed:
> > 1) Nicolas Pitre - arm-soc tree maintainer
> > 2) Arnd Bergmann - arm-soc tree maintainer
> > 3) Olof Johansson - tegra maintainer
> > 4) David Brown
> > 5) Marek Vasut - Various pxa boards maintainer
> > 6) Ohad Ben-Cohen
> > 7) Sascha Hauer
> > 8) Paul Walmsley
> > 9) Catalin Marinas
> > 10) Kukjin Kim - Samsung SoC maintainer
> > 11) Kyungmin Park - Samsung SoC maintainer
> > 12) Mark Brown - ASoC maintainer
> > 13) Grant Likely
> > 
> > Waiting for confirmation:
> > 14) Pavel Machek
> > 15) Eric Miao - pxa/mmp maintainer
> 
> I guess Eric won't come, since he and I have to attend UDS in US just
> the week after ELC-E and KS.

Won't Eric be on both? I think I heard something like that, but it might be a 
fuzzy information ;-)

Cheers

> 
> I suggest Barry Song (CSR SoC maintainer) to join the party and share
> some information to us when he come back to Shanghai.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Bryan

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Bryan Wu]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 04:57:58 AM Bryan Wu wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
> wrote:
>> > Updated attendee list:
>> > Confirmed:
>> > 1) Nicolas Pitre - arm-soc tree maintainer
>> > 2) Arnd Bergmann - arm-soc tree maintainer
>> > 3) Olof Johansson - tegra maintainer
>> > 4) David Brown
>> > 5) Marek Vasut - Various pxa boards maintainer
>> > 6) Ohad Ben-Cohen
>> > 7) Sascha Hauer
>> > 8) Paul Walmsley
>> > 9) Catalin Marinas
>> > 10) Kukjin Kim - Samsung SoC maintainer
>> > 11) Kyungmin Park - Samsung SoC maintainer
>> > 12) Mark Brown - ASoC maintainer
>> > 13) Grant Likely
>> >
>> > Waiting for confirmation:
>> > 14) Pavel Machek
>> > 15) Eric Miao - pxa/mmp maintainer
>>
>> I guess Eric won't come, since he and I have to attend UDS in US just
>> the week after ELC-E and KS.
>
> Won't Eric be on both? I think I heard something like that, but it might be a
> fuzzy information ;-)
>

Yeah, we booked the same flights from Shanghai to US. So I think he
won't come this time.

-Bryan

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Marek Vasut]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 05:08:48 AM Bryan Wu wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 04:57:58 AM Bryan Wu wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Grant Likely
> >> <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
> > 
> > wrote:
> >> > Updated attendee list:
> >> > Confirmed:
> >> > 1) Nicolas Pitre - arm-soc tree maintainer
> >> > 2) Arnd Bergmann - arm-soc tree maintainer
> >> > 3) Olof Johansson - tegra maintainer
> >> > 4) David Brown
> >> > 5) Marek Vasut - Various pxa boards maintainer
> >> > 6) Ohad Ben-Cohen
> >> > 7) Sascha Hauer
> >> > 8) Paul Walmsley
> >> > 9) Catalin Marinas
> >> > 10) Kukjin Kim - Samsung SoC maintainer
> >> > 11) Kyungmin Park - Samsung SoC maintainer
> >> > 12) Mark Brown - ASoC maintainer
> >> > 13) Grant Likely
> >> > 
> >> > Waiting for confirmation:
> >> > 14) Pavel Machek
> >> > 15) Eric Miao - pxa/mmp maintainer
> >> 
> >> I guess Eric won't come, since he and I have to attend UDS in US just
> >> the week after ELC-E and KS.
> > 
> > Won't Eric be on both? I think I heard something like that, but it might
> > be a fuzzy information ;-)
> 
> Yeah, we booked the same flights from Shanghai to US. So I think he
> won't come this time.

Well that sucks really ... say Hi to him from me at least ;-) Enjoy the UDS too 
:-)

Cheers
> 
> -Bryan

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Eric Miao]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 05:08:48 AM Bryan Wu wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 04:57:58 AM Bryan Wu wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Grant Likely
>> >> <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> > Updated attendee list:
>> >> > Confirmed:
>> >> > 1) Nicolas Pitre - arm-soc tree maintainer
>> >> > 2) Arnd Bergmann - arm-soc tree maintainer
>> >> > 3) Olof Johansson - tegra maintainer
>> >> > 4) David Brown
>> >> > 5) Marek Vasut - Various pxa boards maintainer
>> >> > 6) Ohad Ben-Cohen
>> >> > 7) Sascha Hauer
>> >> > 8) Paul Walmsley
>> >> > 9) Catalin Marinas
>> >> > 10) Kukjin Kim - Samsung SoC maintainer
>> >> > 11) Kyungmin Park - Samsung SoC maintainer
>> >> > 12) Mark Brown - ASoC maintainer
>> >> > 13) Grant Likely
>> >> >
>> >> > Waiting for confirmation:
>> >> > 14) Pavel Machek
>> >> > 15) Eric Miao - pxa/mmp maintainer
>> >>
>> >> I guess Eric won't come, since he and I have to attend UDS in US just
>> >> the week after ELC-E and KS.
>> >
>> > Won't Eric be on both? I think I heard something like that, but it might
>> > be a fuzzy information ;-)
>>
>> Yeah, we booked the same flights from Shanghai to US. So I think he
>> won't come this time.
>
> Well that sucks really ... say Hi to him from me at least ;-) Enjoy the UDS too
> :-)

You can say directly to me :-)

Grant,

So yeah I can confirm I'll not be there.

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Marc Zyngier]

On 30/08/11 07:00, Grant Likely wrote:
> Updated attendee list:
> Confirmed:
> 1) Nicolas Pitre - arm-soc tree maintainer
> 2) Arnd Bergmann - arm-soc tree maintainer
> 3) Olof Johansson - tegra maintainer
> 4) David Brown
> 5) Marek Vasut - Various pxa boards maintainer
> 6) Ohad Ben-Cohen
> 7) Sascha Hauer
> 8) Paul Walmsley
> 9) Catalin Marinas
> 10) Kukjin Kim - Samsung SoC maintainer
> 11) Kyungmin Park - Samsung SoC maintainer
> 12) Mark Brown - ASoC maintainer
> 13) Grant Likely
> 
> Waiting for confirmation:
> 14) Pavel Machek
> 15) Eric Miao - pxa/mmp maintainer
> 16) Haojian Zhuang - pxa/mmp maintainer
> 17) Nicolas Ferre - Atmel maintainer
> 18) Will Deacon - ARM engineer
> 
> Nominates, but haven't responded personally:
> 19) Russell King
> 20) Lennert Buytenhek
> 21) Marc Zyngier
> 22) Linus Walleji

Just got the approval, so I will attend.

See you all there !

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Igor Grinberg]

On 08/30/11 09:00, Grant Likely wrote:
> 
> Agenda proposals (Thanks to Nicolas and Olof):
> - DT bindings for GPIO and pin mux
> - the pin mux subsystem from linusw (especially if it is still RFC by
>  then)
> - progress with the single zImage work
> - presentation/status of the DMA and memory management work wrt CMA
>  (some SOC specific hacks should go away once this is available)
> - DT porting progress
> - boot architecture status
> - Report from Arnd on experiences from first arm-soc merge window
>   - what worked well and where's room for improvement?
>   - Any particular SoC workflow that should be tuned to make his life easier?
>   - Where are the gaps where he needs help right now?
>   - How did it work out for the SoC maintainers?
> 
> Still accepting more proposals.  Send me the topics you are burning to discuss.

One of the LPC2011's bottom lines was:
"We need more people involved in ARM maintainership to help
the sub-architecture maintainers do a better job on
review/consolidation/generalization/etc. of the code."

Despite the major goal of the DT to reduce the SoC and
board specific code to absolute minimum, there will still be cases
(e.g. discrete power management circuitry) when there is no
appropriate DT solution available and the board file
is a necessity. Also there are already many boards that will remain
and will not be converted to DT.

Bringing all the above together, I'd like to propose a new "job"
for maintaining board specific code on a cross-platform basis.

Pros:
1) There might (I have not checked this, but I'm sure there is) be
code in the existing board files (that are not likely to go away
at least in a couple of years) that can be consolidated and
may be even in a cross-platform manner.
2) Lower the work load from SoC maintainers (that don't have enough
time to care much about the board specific changes).
3) Some more eyes to review the newly submitted code.

Cons:
1) Resulting overhead for the code to go upstream.
2) Possible addition of merge conflicts.


I'd like to hear, what do you think of the above proposal?

-- 
Regards,
Igor.

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Igor Grinberg]

On 09/27/11 16:25, Igor Grinberg wrote:
> On 08/30/11 09:00, Grant Likely wrote:
>>
>> Agenda proposals (Thanks to Nicolas and Olof):
>> - DT bindings for GPIO and pin mux
>> - the pin mux subsystem from linusw (especially if it is still RFC by
>>  then)
>> - progress with the single zImage work
>> - presentation/status of the DMA and memory management work wrt CMA
>>  (some SOC specific hacks should go away once this is available)
>> - DT porting progress
>> - boot architecture status
>> - Report from Arnd on experiences from first arm-soc merge window
>>   - what worked well and where's room for improvement?
>>   - Any particular SoC workflow that should be tuned to make his life easier?
>>   - Where are the gaps where he needs help right now?
>>   - How did it work out for the SoC maintainers?
>>
>> Still accepting more proposals.  Send me the topics you are burning to discuss.
> 
> One of the LPC2011's bottom lines was:
> "We need more people involved in ARM maintainership to help
> the sub-architecture maintainers do a better job on
> review/consolidation/generalization/etc. of the code."
> 
> Despite the major goal of the DT to reduce the SoC and
> board specific code to absolute minimum, there will still be cases
> (e.g. discrete power management circuitry) when there is no
> appropriate DT solution available and the board file
> is a necessity. Also there are already many boards that will remain
> and will not be converted to DT.
> 
> Bringing all the above together, I'd like to propose a new "job"
> for maintaining board specific code on a cross-platform basis.
> 
> Pros:
> 1) There might (I have not checked this, but I'm sure there is) be
> code in the existing board files (that are not likely to go away
> at least in a couple of years) that can be consolidated and
> may be even in a cross-platform manner.
> 2) Lower the work load from SoC maintainers (that don't have enough
> time to care much about the board specific changes).
> 3) Some more eyes to review the newly submitted code.
> 
> Cons:
> 1) Resulting overhead for the code to go upstream.
> 2) Possible addition of merge conflicts.
> 
> 
> I'd like to hear, what do you think of the above proposal?

Any thoughts? Yes? No? Why? WTF?

 

-- 
Regards,
Igor.

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Catalin Marinas]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:14:01AM +0100, Igor Grinberg wrote:
> > One of the LPC2011's bottom lines was:
> > "We need more people involved in ARM maintainership to help
> > the sub-architecture maintainers do a better job on
> > review/consolidation/generalization/etc. of the code."
> > 
> > Despite the major goal of the DT to reduce the SoC and
> > board specific code to absolute minimum, there will still be cases
> > (e.g. discrete power management circuitry) when there is no
> > appropriate DT solution available and the board file
> > is a necessity. Also there are already many boards that will remain
> > and will not be converted to DT.
> > 
> > Bringing all the above together, I'd like to propose a new "job"
> > for maintaining board specific code on a cross-platform basis.
> > 
> > Pros:
> > 1) There might (I have not checked this, but I'm sure there is) be
> > code in the existing board files (that are not likely to go away
> > at least in a couple of years) that can be consolidated and
> > may be even in a cross-platform manner.
> > 2) Lower the work load from SoC maintainers (that don't have enough
> > time to care much about the board specific changes).
> > 3) Some more eyes to review the newly submitted code.
> > 
> > Cons:
> > 1) Resulting overhead for the code to go upstream.
> > 2) Possible addition of merge conflicts.
> > 
> > 
> > I'd like to hear, what do you think of the above proposal?
> 
> Any thoughts? Yes? No? Why? WTF?

Isn't this what the sub-architecture group (Arnd etc.) already started
doing? Or I missed something in your proposal.

-- 
Catalin

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Igor Grinberg]

Hi Catalin,

On 10/12/11 11:19, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:14:01AM +0100, Igor Grinberg wrote:
>>> One of the LPC2011's bottom lines was:
>>> "We need more people involved in ARM maintainership to help
>>> the sub-architecture maintainers do a better job on
>>> review/consolidation/generalization/etc. of the code."
>>>
>>> Despite the major goal of the DT to reduce the SoC and
>>> board specific code to absolute minimum, there will still be cases
>>> (e.g. discrete power management circuitry) when there is no
>>> appropriate DT solution available and the board file
>>> is a necessity. Also there are already many boards that will remain
>>> and will not be converted to DT.
>>>
>>> Bringing all the above together, I'd like to propose a new "job"
>>> for maintaining board specific code on a cross-platform basis.
>>>
>>> Pros:
>>> 1) There might (I have not checked this, but I'm sure there is) be
>>> code in the existing board files (that are not likely to go away
>>> at least in a couple of years) that can be consolidated and
>>> may be even in a cross-platform manner.
>>> 2) Lower the work load from SoC maintainers (that don't have enough
>>> time to care much about the board specific changes).
>>> 3) Some more eyes to review the newly submitted code.
>>>
>>> Cons:
>>> 1) Resulting overhead for the code to go upstream.
>>> 2) Possible addition of merge conflicts.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to hear, what do you think of the above proposal?
>>
>> Any thoughts? Yes? No? Why? WTF?
> 
> Isn't this what the sub-architecture group (Arnd etc.) already started
> doing? Or I missed something in your proposal.

I think you did miss something, my proposal is for board specific
stuff, not SoC specific. It is another level of abstraction, which
is not always seen.
Anyway, please, see my answer to Nico.

Thanks 

-- 
Regards,
Igor.

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Igor Grinberg wrote:

> On 09/27/11 16:25, Igor Grinberg wrote:
> > On 08/30/11 09:00, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> Still accepting more proposals.  Send me the topics you are burning to discuss.
> > 
> > One of the LPC2011's bottom lines was:
> > "We need more people involved in ARM maintainership to help
> > the sub-architecture maintainers do a better job on
> > review/consolidation/generalization/etc. of the code."
> > 
> > Despite the major goal of the DT to reduce the SoC and
> > board specific code to absolute minimum, there will still be cases
> > (e.g. discrete power management circuitry) when there is no
> > appropriate DT solution available and the board file
> > is a necessity. Also there are already many boards that will remain
> > and will not be converted to DT.
> > 
> > Bringing all the above together, I'd like to propose a new "job"
> > for maintaining board specific code on a cross-platform basis.
> > 
> > Pros:
> > 1) There might (I have not checked this, but I'm sure there is) be
> > code in the existing board files (that are not likely to go away
> > at least in a couple of years) that can be consolidated and
> > may be even in a cross-platform manner.
> > 2) Lower the work load from SoC maintainers (that don't have enough
> > time to care much about the board specific changes).
> > 3) Some more eyes to review the newly submitted code.
> > 
> > Cons:
> > 1) Resulting overhead for the code to go upstream.
> > 2) Possible addition of merge conflicts.
> > 
> > 
> > I'd like to hear, what do you think of the above proposal?
> 
> Any thoughts? Yes? No? Why? WTF?

Well...  Please see http://lwn.net/Articles/443510/.

Since then,  ARnd Bergmann has led the arm-soc repository maintenance 
effort as you might have noticed.  Other cleanup/consolidation projects 
are also progressing in parallel.

Obviously, as always, we would always benefit from more reviewers and 
more people in maintainership roles.  The general situation has improved 
since a couple months ago, but any additional suggestions you might have 
will always be welcome.


Nicolas

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Igor Grinberg]

On 10/12/11 17:33, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Igor Grinberg wrote:
> 
>> On 09/27/11 16:25, Igor Grinberg wrote:
>>> On 08/30/11 09:00, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>> Still accepting more proposals.  Send me the topics you are burning to discuss.
>>>
>>> One of the LPC2011's bottom lines was:
>>> "We need more people involved in ARM maintainership to help
>>> the sub-architecture maintainers do a better job on
>>> review/consolidation/generalization/etc. of the code."
>>>
>>> Despite the major goal of the DT to reduce the SoC and
>>> board specific code to absolute minimum, there will still be cases
>>> (e.g. discrete power management circuitry) when there is no
>>> appropriate DT solution available and the board file
>>> is a necessity. Also there are already many boards that will remain
>>> and will not be converted to DT.
>>>
>>> Bringing all the above together, I'd like to propose a new "job"
>>> for maintaining board specific code on a cross-platform basis.
>>>
>>> Pros:
>>> 1) There might (I have not checked this, but I'm sure there is) be
>>> code in the existing board files (that are not likely to go away
>>> at least in a couple of years) that can be consolidated and
>>> may be even in a cross-platform manner.
>>> 2) Lower the work load from SoC maintainers (that don't have enough
>>> time to care much about the board specific changes).
>>> 3) Some more eyes to review the newly submitted code.
>>>
>>> Cons:
>>> 1) Resulting overhead for the code to go upstream.
>>> 2) Possible addition of merge conflicts.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to hear, what do you think of the above proposal?
>>
>> Any thoughts? Yes? No? Why? WTF?
> 
> Well...  Please see http://lwn.net/Articles/443510/.
> 
> Since then,  ARnd Bergmann has led the arm-soc repository maintenance 
> effort as you might have noticed.  Other cleanup/consolidation projects 
> are also progressing in parallel.

Yes, of course I've noticed (how can someone to not notice?).

> 
> Obviously, as always, we would always benefit from more reviewers and 
> more people in maintainership roles.  The general situation has improved 
> since a couple months ago, but any additional suggestions you might have 
> will always be welcome.

Yes, the situation did improve, that is correct.

Currently, SoC maintainers have a separate branch of board specific
patches and it is kind of a burden that they live with and push it
to Arnd.
What I'm trying to propose here is another level of maintainership.
Which would accumulate board specific stuff (not SoC specific) and
push it to Arnd directly with no need to involve SoC maintainers
(may be only for Acks on SoC stuff).
Despite all the efforts to move to DT, there is still much work
must be done and IMO the board files aren't going to disappear in
the near future (say 2 years?). Meanwhile, my proposition can
lower the work load from SoC maintainers.

There is a possibility that my proposal will not serve well,
or may be it will?

Before making any decision, I want to make sure you understand
what is that I'm proposing here.

-- 
Regards,
Igor.

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Catalin Marinas]

Hi Grant,

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:00:16AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> Agenda proposals (Thanks to Nicolas and Olof):
> - DT bindings for GPIO and pin mux
> - the pin mux subsystem from linusw (especially if it is still RFC by
>  then)
> - progress with the single zImage work
> - presentation/status of the DMA and memory management work wrt CMA
>  (some SOC specific hacks should go away once this is available)
> - DT porting progress
> - boot architecture status
> - Report from Arnd on experiences from first arm-soc merge window
>   - what worked well and where's room for improvement?
>   - Any particular SoC workflow that should be tuned to make his life easier?
>   - Where are the gaps where he needs help right now?
>   - How did it work out for the SoC maintainers?

Some more thoughts, probably under some of the above topics like single
zImage or boot architecture if there is time on the agenda:

- Errata (CPU, cache controller etc.) workarounds - do we need some
  common way to register workarounds that individual SoCs need to be
  enabled during boot? With a single zImage platform, we need to enable
  as many (CPU) errata workarounds as possible but, even though we check
  the CPU revision, we may find that some undocumented bits cannot be
  set because Linux is running in non-secure mode (and the secure code
  on the SoC doesn't set the bit either) or the SoC already implemented
  an ECO fix and the workaround is no longer needed.

- CPU topology - Vincent Guittot proposed patches to automatically
  generate a CPU topology based on the MPIDR. I think we should be able
  to override this using some DT description (and also be able to
  describe the mapping between GIC CPU interfaces and the CPU numbering
  via DT).

Unrelated to the above

- Different DMA coherency requirements within the same SoC - this is
  linked to the work already started by Marek on dma_map_ops (though the
  focus was mainly IOMMU). Basically there are SoCs where some device
  requires non-cacheable memory while another device is connected via a
  coherency port and can snoop the CPU caches. The arch_is_coherent()
  that we currently have is not fine-grained enough for this task.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Catalin Marinas wrote:

> Hi Grant,
> 
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:00:16AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> > Agenda proposals (Thanks to Nicolas and Olof):
> > - DT bindings for GPIO and pin mux
> > - the pin mux subsystem from linusw (especially if it is still RFC by
> >  then)
> > - progress with the single zImage work
> > - presentation/status of the DMA and memory management work wrt CMA
> >  (some SOC specific hacks should go away once this is available)
> > - DT porting progress
> > - boot architecture status
> > - Report from Arnd on experiences from first arm-soc merge window
> >   - what worked well and where's room for improvement?
> >   - Any particular SoC workflow that should be tuned to make his life easier?
> >   - Where are the gaps where he needs help right now?
> >   - How did it work out for the SoC maintainers?
> 
> Some more thoughts, probably under some of the above topics like single
> zImage or boot architecture if there is time on the agenda:
> 
> - Errata (CPU, cache controller etc.) workarounds - do we need some
>   common way to register workarounds that individual SoCs need to be
>   enabled during boot? With a single zImage platform, we need to enable
>   as many (CPU) errata workarounds as possible but, even though we check
>   the CPU revision, we may find that some undocumented bits cannot be
>   set because Linux is running in non-secure mode (and the secure code
>   on the SoC doesn't set the bit either) or the SoC already implemented
>   an ECO fix and the workaround is no longer needed.

Yes, that would be good to cover during single zImage discussions.

> - CPU topology - Vincent Guittot proposed patches to automatically
>   generate a CPU topology based on the MPIDR. I think we should be able
>   to override this using some DT description (and also be able to
>   describe the mapping between GIC CPU interfaces and the CPU numbering
>   via DT).

I think some discussion around DT bindings is planned.  That would fit 
there.

> Unrelated to the above
> 
> - Different DMA coherency requirements within the same SoC - this is
>   linked to the work already started by Marek on dma_map_ops (though the
>   focus was mainly IOMMU). Basically there are SoCs where some device
>   requires non-cacheable memory while another device is connected via a
>   coherency port and can snoop the CPU caches. The arch_is_coherent()
>   that we currently have is not fine-grained enough for this task.

If you have actual example use cases and solution proposals then this 
could certainly be brought up during DMA oriented discussions.


Nicolas

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Catalin Marinas]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:00:16AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> Agenda proposals (Thanks to Nicolas and Olof):
...
> - boot architecture status

If there is still room on the agenda, I would like to get an agreement
on the best way to deal with the Hypervisor mode - (1) start the kernel
in Hyp mode or (2) have a standard HVC API in the board firmware to
allow Linux (KVM, Xen) to take control of the Hyp mode. This could fit
under the boot architecture discussion.

For (1), it could be problematic as the boot loader (e.g. U-Boot) needs
to be aware of the Hyp mode. The 2nd variant may be better but the API
needs to be kept very simple.

I know that neither KVM nor Xen for ARM are supported in the mainline
kernel but silicon vendors are already working on Cortex-A15 platforms
and it would be good if their firmware supports Linux virtualisation.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Marek Vasut]

On Monday, October 17, 2011 10:54:29 AM Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:00:16AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> > Agenda proposals (Thanks to Nicolas and Olof):
> ...
> 
> > - boot architecture status
> 
> If there is still room on the agenda, I would like to get an agreement
> on the best way to deal with the Hypervisor mode - (1) start the kernel
> in Hyp mode or (2) have a standard HVC API in the board firmware to
> allow Linux (KVM, Xen) to take control of the Hyp mode. This could fit
> under the boot architecture discussion.
> 
> For (1), it could be problematic as the boot loader (e.g. U-Boot) needs
> to be aware of the Hyp mode. The 2nd variant may be better but the API
> needs to be kept very simple.

Hi Catalin,

talking about U-Boot, I might pull out the u-boot driver model initiative and 
talk about it for a bit. It's still in design phase so it'd be awesome to get 
some comments on it.

Cheers

> 
> I know that neither KVM nor Xen for ARM are supported in the mainline
> kernel but silicon vendors are already working on Cortex-A15 platforms
> and it would be good if their firmware supports Linux virtualisation.
> 
> Thanks.

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Linus Walleij]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:

> Nominates, but haven't responded personally:
> (...)
> 22) Linus Walleji

I won't be coming, sorry friends.

> Agenda proposals (Thanks to Nicolas and Olof):
> - the pin mux subsystem from linusw (especially if it is still RFC by
> ?then)

I will be happy to attend by wire if provided the necessary details.
pin control with mux basics is in -next and I am iterating next design
step with Stephen Warren from nVidia.

> Still accepting more proposals. ?Send me the topics you are burning to discuss.

Since I'm not coming I don't know how relevant my opinions are.

But a topic which I think is important is:
"Subsystems! Subsystems! Subsystems!"
(Bonus if you get Greg to shout this dancing on stage.)

We have noticed a lack of subsystems such as pin control to
compartmentalize "stuff" currently stacking up in arch/arm/*
drivers/misc/* and drivers/mfd/*.

The problem of how to adress this the proper way by creating
new subsystems need to be shed some light upon, just telling
every subarch to "go create a new subsystem, it'll just take a
few man-years of your working hours" apparently does not always
work.

On a related key is the need to get the stuff in drivers/staging/iio
into drivers/ proper.

Just my ?0.01..

BR,
Linus Walleij

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Jonathan Cameron]

On 10/20/11 14:35, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
> 
>> Nominates, but haven't responded personally:
>> (...)
>> 22) Linus Walleji
> 
> I won't be coming, sorry friends.
> 
>> Agenda proposals (Thanks to Nicolas and Olof):
>> - the pin mux subsystem from linusw (especially if it is still RFC by
>>  then)
> 
> I will be happy to attend by wire if provided the necessary details.
> pin control with mux basics is in -next and I am iterating next design
> step with Stephen Warren from nVidia.
> 
>> Still accepting more proposals.  Send me the topics you are burning to discuss.
> 
> Since I'm not coming I don't know how relevant my opinions are.
> 
> But a topic which I think is important is:
> "Subsystems! Subsystems! Subsystems!"
> (Bonus if you get Greg to shout this dancing on stage.)
> 
> We have noticed a lack of subsystems such as pin control to
> compartmentalize "stuff" currently stacking up in arch/arm/*
> drivers/misc/* and drivers/mfd/*.
> 
> The problem of how to adress this the proper way by creating
> new subsystems need to be shed some light upon, just telling
> every subarch to "go create a new subsystem, it'll just take a
> few man-years of your working hours" apparently does not always
> work.
> 
> On a related key is the need to get the stuff in drivers/staging/iio
> into drivers/ proper.
Thanks Linus.  What this needs is a few of those man hours of people ripping
the proposed patches to shreds. Lots more to follow once step one is cleaned
up :)
> 
> Just my ?0.01..
> 
> BR,
> Linus Walleij

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Barry Song]

2011/10/20 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>:
> On 10/20/11 14:35, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Nominates, but haven't responded personally:
>>> (...)
>>> 22) Linus Walleji
>>
>> I won't be coming, sorry friends.
>>
>>> Agenda proposals (Thanks to Nicolas and Olof):
>>> - the pin mux subsystem from linusw (especially if it is still RFC by
>>> ?then)
>>
>> I will be happy to attend by wire if provided the necessary details.
>> pin control with mux basics is in -next and I am iterating next design
>> step with Stephen Warren from nVidia.
>>
>>> Still accepting more proposals. ?Send me the topics you are burning to discuss.
>>
>> Since I'm not coming I don't know how relevant my opinions are.
>>
>> But a topic which I think is important is:
>> "Subsystems! Subsystems! Subsystems!"
>> (Bonus if you get Greg to shout this dancing on stage.)
>>
>> We have noticed a lack of subsystems such as pin control to
>> compartmentalize "stuff" currently stacking up in arch/arm/*
>> drivers/misc/* and drivers/mfd/*.
>>
>> The problem of how to adress this the proper way by creating
>> new subsystems need to be shed some light upon, just telling
>> every subarch to "go create a new subsystem, it'll just take a
>> few man-years of your working hours" apparently does not always
>> work.
>>
>> On a related key is the need to get the stuff in drivers/staging/iio
>> into drivers/ proper.
> Thanks Linus. ?What this needs is a few of those man hours of people ripping
> the proposed patches to shreds. Lots more to follow once step one is cleaned
> up :)

as Jonathan knows, i was one of main authors of those drivers in
drivers/staging/iio. one problem for iio is now most people still
write sensor drivers based on input subsystem or others but not iio.
and Android HAL or other frameworks prefer input _event as well.
so to push iio ahead, we might push related app ahead too.

>>
>> Just my ?0.01..
>>
>> BR,
>> Linus Walleij

-barry

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:25:15PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:

> as Jonathan knows, i was one of main authors of those drivers in
> drivers/staging/iio. one problem for iio is now most people still
> write sensor drivers based on input subsystem or others but not iio.
> and Android HAL or other frameworks prefer input _event as well.
> so to push iio ahead, we might push related app ahead too.

Well, that's not entirely clear - one of the reasons for discussing an
in kernel API is so that drivers for these subsystems can make use of
IIO channels.  Another big blocker for deployment of IIO right now is
that it's in staging, fixing that will probably help enormously.

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Jonathan Cameron]

On 10/20/11 15:46, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:25:15PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> 
>> as Jonathan knows, i was one of main authors of those drivers in
>> drivers/staging/iio. one problem for iio is now most people still
>> write sensor drivers based on input subsystem or others but not iio.
>> and Android HAL or other frameworks prefer input _event as well.
>> so to push iio ahead, we might push related app ahead too.
> 
> Well, that's not entirely clear - one of the reasons for discussing an
> in kernel API is so that drivers for these subsystems can make use of
> IIO channels.  Another big blocker for deployment of IIO right now is
> that it's in staging, fixing that will probably help enormously.
That and push in kernel APIs.  Working on that though.  Note however they
will be dependent on at least the first three sets of patches in
our original master move out of staging plan.  So lots of other stuff
to get fixed up first.  Some of which is probably going to be controversial.

Direct user space code will exist for the usecases we were originally
targeting, but where it makes sense, Mark has convinced me of the need
to push things out through input / hmwon. Guenter doesn't seem against
so that's a start.  Dmitry has always pushed for this (though last
time we talked about it, plan was a userspace bridge).

We'll still want to be very careful to keep any users that go into
mainline on the straight an narrow wrt to pushing stuff through those
subsystems that doesn't belong.

Jonathan

Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011

[Barry Song]

Hi Grant,
i found i am in the "Nominated, but have not yet responded " at the
URL http://www.elinux.org/Events/Kernel_Summit_2011_ARM_Subarch_Maintainership_Workshop.
i am sorry i will not attend.

2011/10/20 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>:
> On 10/20/11 15:46, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:25:15PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>>
>>> as Jonathan knows, i was one of main authors of those drivers in
>>> drivers/staging/iio. one problem for iio is now most people still
>>> write sensor drivers based on input subsystem or others but not iio.
>>> and Android HAL or other frameworks prefer input _event as well.
>>> so to push iio ahead, we might push related app ahead too.
>>
>> Well, that's not entirely clear - one of the reasons for discussing an
>> in kernel API is so that drivers for these subsystems can make use of
>> IIO channels. ?Another big blocker for deployment of IIO right now is
>> that it's in staging, fixing that will probably help enormously.
> That and push in kernel APIs. ?Working on that though. ?Note however they
> will be dependent on at least the first three sets of patches in
> our original master move out of staging plan. ?So lots of other stuff
> to get fixed up first. ?Some of which is probably going to be controversial.
>
> Direct user space code will exist for the usecases we were originally
> targeting, but where it makes sense, Mark has convinced me of the need
> to push things out through input / hmwon. Guenter doesn't seem against
> so that's a start. ?Dmitry has always pushed for this (though last
> time we talked about it, plan was a userspace bridge).
>
> We'll still want to be very careful to keep any users that go into
> mainline on the straight an narrow wrt to pushing stuff through those
> subsystems that doesn't belong.
>
> Jonathan
>
-barry