Re: [Fuego] [LTSI-dev] LTSI-4.9 RC1 is out for testing!

Re: [Fuego] [LTSI-dev] LTSI-4.9 RC1 is out for testing!

[Khiem Nguyen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5918 bytes --]

Hi Greg, Simon,
Cc Shimoda-san,
Cc Tim,

> > LTSI-4.9-RC1 is now ready for testing.
> > http://ltsi.linuxfoundation.org/releases/ltsi-tree/4.9.40-ltsi-rc1/rel
> > ease-candidate
> >
> > I recommend to use Fuego for testing this RC1, and when you test this, please
> share the result with this mailing list. This process would make the kernel better
> for the industry usage.
> 
> Our team tested this RC1 using Fuego 1.0 (sorry, we have trouble when we use
> Fuego 1.1.
> So, we used Fuego 1.0) on R-Car H3 Salvator-X.

Latest Fuego has not officially supported R-Car Gen3 boards (Salvator-X or Starter Kit) yet.
Therefore, we have added board support locally for testing LTSI 4.9 RC1.

There are other issues about test scripts in Fuego, so that some test cases could not be run successfully.
We have also fixed the issues.
We will send out the patches to fix test cases as well as adding new boards to Fuego.
i.e after Fuego 1.2 is released in coming weeks.

> And, I wrote the result in the end of this email as csv format.
> 
> Also, our team found some issues (the board cannot resume well) and the
> following patches can resolve it.
> Would you do cherry-pick them?
> Or, should I send the patches like general Linux development role? :)

We did perform LTP test, BSP drivers test with Fuego.
1. LTP test (based on latest version, 20170516) has been executed.
      The test result shows no big issues on LTSI 4.9 RC1.
      I also attached the result for reference.
2. BSP drivers' test has been executed based on the test cases in github [1]
     i.e LED, RCAR-GPIO, I2C, ETHERNET, SCIF/HSCIF, Display-Unit, SDHI, SATA, USB2, USB3, RCAR-SOUND, RCAR-THERMAL, DMAE.

      [1] https://github.com/Jinzai-solution/SALVATOR_SHELL.git

    We did compare the BSP test results of LTSI 4.9 RC1 and upstream v4.12.
       And we found some regressions in RC1 test result due to lacking some patches.
       e.g some failed cases in USB, RCAR-SOUND, RCAR-THERMAL,
    Hence, we would like to backport more patches from v4.11 and v4.12 to fix the failed cases.

> 5095cb8 usb: of: add functions to bind a companion controller
> d4d7512 usb: host: ehci-platform: fix usb 1.1 device is not connected in system
> resume
> 42a58c9 usb: host: ehci-platform: set hcd->phy to avoid phy_get() in
> usb_add_hcd()
> d3d6ef1 usb: host: ohci-platform: set hcd->phy to avoid phy_get() in
> usb_add_hcd()
> c567fb3 clk: cs2000: add Suspend/Resume feature

There are more patches (from kernel v4.12) are needed.
  1/ Add the rcar-thermal driver from v4.12.
         75f78d6 thermal: rcar_gen3_thermal: add suspend and resume support
         cc4d072 thermal: rcar_gen3_thermal: store device match data in private structure
         7d4b269 thermal: rcar_gen3_thermal: enable hardware interrupts for trip points
         97dad1f thermal: rcar_gen3_thermal: record and check number of TSCs found
         d51546c thermal: rcar_gen3_thermal: check that TSC exists before memory allocation
         100cfbc thermal: rcar_gen3_thermal: remove unneeded mutex
         78aefd2 thermal: rcar_gen3_thermal: add delay in .thermal_init on r8a7796
         564e73d thermal: rcar_gen3_thermal: Add R-Car Gen3 thermal driver

Hi Simon,
About above patches, 
could you check the patches and send the merging request to Greg at once ?

> ---
> No.,Test item,Remarks,Status
> 1,Benchmark.aim7,Failure if executed bench processing step,Success
> 2,Benchmark.blobsallad,Build failed,Failure 3,Benchmark.bonnie,,Success
> 4,Benchmark.cyclictest,,Success 5,Benchmark.dbench,,Success
> 6,Benchmark.Dhrystone,,Success 7,Benchmark.ebizzy,,Success
> 8,Benchmark.ffsb,Build failed,Failure 9,Benchmark.fio,,Success
> 10,Benchmark.GLMark,Build failed,Failure 11,Benchmark.gtkperf,Ditto,Failure
> 12,Benchmark.hackbench,,Success
> 13,Benchmark.himeno,,Success
> 14,Benchmark.Interbench,Build failed,Failure 15,Benchmark.IOzone,Ditto,Failure
> 16,Benchmark.iperf,Ditto,Failure 17,Benchmark.Java,Ditto,Failure
> 18,Benchmark.linpack,Failure if executed bench processing step,Success
> 19,Benchmark.lmbench2,Hang up when executed,Aborted
> 20,Benchmark.nbench_byte,Hang up when executed,Aborted
> 21,Benchmark.netperf,Build failed,Failure 22,Benchmark.netpipe,No such file
> patch,Failure 23,Benchmark.OpenSSL,Build failed,Failure
> 24,Benchmark.reboot,Failure if executed bench processing step,Success
> 25,Benchmark.signaltest,Ditto,Success
> 26,Benchmark.Stream,Ditto,Success
> 27,Benchmark.tiobench,Build failed,Failure
> 28,Benchmark.Whetstone,Ditto,Failure
> 29,Benchmark.x11perf,Ditto,Failure
> 
> No.,Test item,Remarks,Status
> 1,Functional.aiostress,,Success
> 2,Functional.arch_timer,Need to change test specification,Success
> 3,Functional.bc,,Success 4,Functional.bzip2,,Success 5,Functional.cmt,Test case
> failed,Failure 6,Functional.crashme,,Success 7,Functional.expat,Build
> failed,Failure 8,Functional.fontconfig,,Success 9,Functional.ft2demos,Build
> failed,Failure 10,Functional.glib,Ditto,Failure 11,Functional.hello_world,,Success
> 12,Functional.ipv6connect,,Success
> 13,Functional.jpeg,,Success
> 14,Functional.libpng,Build failed,Failure 15,Functional.linus_stress,,Success
> 16,Functional.LTP.Devices,Build failed,Failure 17,Functional.LTP.Filesystem,Build
> failed,Failure 18,Functional.LTP.Open_Posix,Build failed,Failure
> 19,Functional.netperf,3/5 failed,Failure 20,Functional.OpenSSL,Hang up when
> executed,Aborted 21,Functional.pi_tests,,Success
> 22,Functional.posixtestsuite,,Success
> 23,Functional.rmaptest,,Success
> 24,Functional.scifab,Need to change test specification,Success
> 25,Functional.scrashme,Build failed,Failure 26,Functional.sdhi_0,Need to change
> test specification,Success 27,Functional.stress,,Success
> 28,Functional.synctest,,Success 29,Functional.zlib,,Success

Best regards,
KHIEM  Nguyen

[-- Attachment #2: LTSI_4.9_RC1_LTP_report.xls --]
[-- Type: application/vnd.ms-excel, Size: 74240 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: LTSI_4.9_RC1_BSP_tests_with_Fuego.xls --]
[-- Type: application/vnd.ms-excel, Size: 86528 bytes --]

Re: [Fuego] [LTSI-dev] LTSI-4.9 RC1 is out for testing!

[Bird, Timothy]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Khiem Nguyen on August 27, 2017 8:43 PM
> > Our team tested this RC1 using Fuego 1.0 (sorry, we have trouble when we
> use
> > Fuego 1.1.
> > So, we used Fuego 1.0) on R-Car H3 Salvator-X.
> 
I would like to hear what problems were encountered with Fuego 1.1
that made it necessary to stay with 1.0. 

> Latest Fuego has not officially supported R-Car Gen3 boards (Salvator-X or
> Starter Kit) yet.
> Therefore, we have added board support locally for testing LTSI 4.9 RC1.
> 
Previously I was hesitant to add board files to Fuego, as it required
Jenkins board definitions to be present in the code repository.
Under the new Fuego architecture, Fuego
does not ship the board definitions in our repository, and Jenkins
boards can be added and removed independently of the Fuego 
board definitions with a simple ftc command.

Therefore, I think we can add as many board definition files as we
would like (and not clutter up the Jenkins interface.)  That is, Fuego
users will only create the Jenkins board definitions for the boards
they want to use.

> There are other issues about test scripts in Fuego, so that some test cases
> could not be run successfully.
> We have also fixed the issues.
>
> We will send out the patches to fix test cases as well as adding new boards to
> Fuego.
> i.e after Fuego 1.2 is released in coming weeks.

That's great.  I look forward to hearing about the issues and seeing your
fixes.  I would be happy to add whatever board files you have to Fuego,
to make it easier for users to work with those boards.

> 
> > And, I wrote the result in the end of this email as csv format.
> >
> > Also, our team found some issues (the board cannot resume well) and the
> > following patches can resolve it.
> > Would you do cherry-pick them?
> > Or, should I send the patches like general Linux development role? :)

My preference is to have the patches in a repository that I can cherry-pick from,
but also have them posted to the Fuego list so that we can discuss individual
patch elements on the mailing list.  Since I'm not integrating the patches
from the mailing list, they don't have to be as strictly formatted as they
would otherwise need to be.  However, I assume you can just use something
like git send-email to send to the list.   The standard Linux rules for
posting patches apply: please send messages in plain text, with the patch
inline in the message body (and not as an attachment).

> We did perform LTP test, BSP drivers test with Fuego.
> 1. LTP test (based on latest version, 20170516) has been executed.
>       The test result shows no big issues on LTSI 4.9 RC1.
>       I also attached the result for reference.

Thanks for posting the results spreadsheets - this is very useful to see
the report style you are using, and information you wished to see.
Were these generated automatically or manually?

We have some new abilities in Fuego 1.2 that may be helpful:
 - ability to skip executing a subtest in LTP ( via a spec file entry)
 - ability to ignore a failure of a testcase as part of the pass criteria for a test
(via a criteria.json entry)

> > No.,Test item,Remarks,Status
> > 1,Benchmark.aim7,Failure if executed bench processing step,Success
> > 2,Benchmark.blobsallad,Build failed,Failure 3,Benchmark.bonnie,,Success
> > 4,Benchmark.cyclictest,,Success 5,Benchmark.dbench,,Success
> > 6,Benchmark.Dhrystone,,Success 7,Benchmark.ebizzy,,Success
> > 8,Benchmark.ffsb,Build failed,Failure 9,Benchmark.fio,,Success
> > 10,Benchmark.GLMark,Build failed,Failure
> 11,Benchmark.gtkperf,Ditto,Failure
> > 12,Benchmark.hackbench,,Success
> > 13,Benchmark.himeno,,Success
> > 14,Benchmark.Interbench,Build failed,Failure
> 15,Benchmark.IOzone,Ditto,Failure
> > 16,Benchmark.iperf,Ditto,Failure 17,Benchmark.Java,Ditto,Failure
> > 18,Benchmark.linpack,Failure if executed bench processing step,Success
> > 19,Benchmark.lmbench2,Hang up when executed,Aborted
> > 20,Benchmark.nbench_byte,Hang up when executed,Aborted
> > 21,Benchmark.netperf,Build failed,Failure 22,Benchmark.netpipe,No such
> file
> > patch,Failure 23,Benchmark.OpenSSL,Build failed,Failure
> > 24,Benchmark.reboot,Failure if executed bench processing step,Success
> > 25,Benchmark.signaltest,Ditto,Success
> > 26,Benchmark.Stream,Ditto,Success
> > 27,Benchmark.tiobench,Build failed,Failure
> > 28,Benchmark.Whetstone,Ditto,Failure
> > 29,Benchmark.x11perf,Ditto,Failure
> >
> > No.,Test item,Remarks,Status
> > 1,Functional.aiostress,,Success
> > 2,Functional.arch_timer,Need to change test specification,Success
> > 3,Functional.bc,,Success 4,Functional.bzip2,,Success 5,Functional.cmt,Test
> case
> > failed,Failure 6,Functional.crashme,,Success 7,Functional.expat,Build
> > failed,Failure 8,Functional.fontconfig,,Success 9,Functional.ft2demos,Build
> > failed,Failure 10,Functional.glib,Ditto,Failure
> 11,Functional.hello_world,,Success
> > 12,Functional.ipv6connect,,Success
> > 13,Functional.jpeg,,Success
> > 14,Functional.libpng,Build failed,Failure 15,Functional.linus_stress,,Success
> > 16,Functional.LTP.Devices,Build failed,Failure
> 17,Functional.LTP.Filesystem,Build
> > failed,Failure 18,Functional.LTP.Open_Posix,Build failed,Failure
> > 19,Functional.netperf,3/5 failed,Failure 20,Functional.OpenSSL,Hang up
> when
> > executed,Aborted 21,Functional.pi_tests,,Success
> > 22,Functional.posixtestsuite,,Success
> > 23,Functional.rmaptest,,Success
> > 24,Functional.scifab,Need to change test specification,Success
> > 25,Functional.scrashme,Build failed,Failure 26,Functional.sdhi_0,Need to
> change
> > test specification,Success 27,Functional.stress,,Success
> > 28,Functional.synctest,,Success 29,Functional.zlib,,Success

Fuego still needs some work in the area of identifying and capturing 
the location of the failure (particularly build failures) and putting
that into the log data.  Some errors shows up in the console log, and
humans have to read that to interpret the failure.  After 1.2, I hope
to improve this so that Fuego can 1) add Fuego phase data to test
results output file (run.json), 2) parse the build portion of the log to
isolate the error.  This will help users avoid having to read through
the console log in order to find and identify some problems.

Thanks very much for the information and feedback.
 -- Tim

Re: [Fuego] [LTSI-dev] LTSI-4.9 RC1 is out for testing!

[Yoshihiro Shimoda]

Hi,

> From: Bird, Timothy
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 1:57 PM
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Khiem Nguyen on August 27, 2017 8:43 PM
< snip >
> > > And, I wrote the result in the end of this email as csv format.
> > >
> > > Also, our team found some issues (the board cannot resume well) and the
> > > following patches can resolve it.
> > > Would you do cherry-pick them?
> > > Or, should I send the patches like general Linux development role? :)
> 
> My preference is to have the patches in a repository that I can cherry-pick from,
> but also have them posted to the Fuego list so that we can discuss individual
> patch elements on the mailing list.  Since I'm not integrating the patches
> from the mailing list, they don't have to be as strictly formatted as they
> would otherwise need to be.  However, I assume you can just use something
> like git send-email to send to the list.   The standard Linux rules for
> posting patches apply: please send messages in plain text, with the patch
> inline in the message body (and not as an attachment).

Thank you for the reply. I got it.


Hi Simon-san,

Would you submit the following patches to LTSI ML like r-car thermal?

5095cb8 usb: of: add functions to bind a companion controller
d4d7512 usb: host: ehci-platform: fix usb 1.1 device is not connected in system resume
42a58c9 usb: host: ehci-platform: set hcd->phy to avoid phy_get() in usb_add_hcd()
d3d6ef1 usb: host: ohci-platform: set hcd->phy to avoid phy_get() in usb_add_hcd()

and 

c567fb3 clk: cs2000: add Suspend/Resume feature

Best regards,
Yoshihro Shimoda

Re: [Fuego] [LTSI-dev] LTSI-4.9 RC1 is out for testing!

[Simon Horman]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 09:36:26AM +0000, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > From: Bird, Timothy
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 1:57 PM
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Khiem Nguyen on August 27, 2017 8:43 PM
> < snip >
> > > > And, I wrote the result in the end of this email as csv format.
> > > >
> > > > Also, our team found some issues (the board cannot resume well) and the
> > > > following patches can resolve it.
> > > > Would you do cherry-pick them?
> > > > Or, should I send the patches like general Linux development role? :)
> > 
> > My preference is to have the patches in a repository that I can cherry-pick from,
> > but also have them posted to the Fuego list so that we can discuss individual
> > patch elements on the mailing list.  Since I'm not integrating the patches
> > from the mailing list, they don't have to be as strictly formatted as they
> > would otherwise need to be.  However, I assume you can just use something
> > like git send-email to send to the list.   The standard Linux rules for
> > posting patches apply: please send messages in plain text, with the patch
> > inline in the message body (and not as an attachment).
> 
> Thank you for the reply. I got it.
> 
> 
> Hi Simon-san,
> 
> Would you submit the following patches to LTSI ML like r-car thermal?
> 
> 5095cb8 usb: of: add functions to bind a companion controller
> d4d7512 usb: host: ehci-platform: fix usb 1.1 device is not connected in system resume
> 42a58c9 usb: host: ehci-platform: set hcd->phy to avoid phy_get() in usb_add_hcd()
> d3d6ef1 usb: host: ohci-platform: set hcd->phy to avoid phy_get() in usb_add_hcd()
> 
> and 
> 
> c567fb3 clk: cs2000: add Suspend/Resume feature

Sure, can do.

I would, however, ask Greg for a bit of time to at do some
comprehensive build tests as these patches touch code used by many
platforms.

Re: [Fuego] [LTSI-dev] LTSI-4.9 RC1 is out for testing!

[Khiem Nguyen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1224 bytes --]

Hi Simon,
Cc Shimoda-san, Greg,

> Would you submit the following patches to LTSI ML like r-car thermal?
> 
> 5095cb8 usb: of: add functions to bind a companion controller
> d4d7512 usb: host: ehci-platform: fix usb 1.1 device is not connected in system
> resume
> 42a58c9 usb: host: ehci-platform: set hcd->phy to avoid phy_get() in
> usb_add_hcd()
> d3d6ef1 usb: host: ohci-platform: set hcd->phy to avoid phy_get() in
> usb_add_hcd()
> 
> and
> 
> c567fb3 clk: cs2000: add Suspend/Resume feature

I happened to recognize that we need to backport some patches
for Ethernet driver in H3ULCB and M3ULCB.
Previous test report showed the result after merging the patch.
I updated the test result for this information.

For H3ULCB, the patches have been available in kernel v4.12.
   144bf6c arm64: dts: h3ulcb: enable EthernetAVB
   5b9fd19 arm64: dts: h3ulcb: Fix EthernetAVB PHY timing

For M3ULCB, the patches have been merged into kernel v4.13-rc1.
   883fae3 arm64: dts: m3ulcb: enable EthernetAVB
   bdb3656 arm64: dts: m3ulcb: Fix EthernetAVB PHY timing

Although the scope of backporting is up to v4.12,
please also consider for the patches in v4.13-rc1.

Best regards,
KHIEM Nguyen

[-- Attachment #2: LTSI_4.9_RC1_BSP_tests_with_Fuego_v2.xls --]
[-- Type: application/vnd.ms-excel, Size: 86016 bytes --]

Re: [Fuego] [LTSI-dev] LTSI-4.9 RC1 is out for testing!

[Khiem Nguyen]

Hi Simon,

> > Would you submit the following patches to LTSI ML like r-car thermal?
> >
> > 5095cb8 usb: of: add functions to bind a companion controller
> > d4d7512 usb: host: ehci-platform: fix usb 1.1 device is not connected
> > in system resume
> > 42a58c9 usb: host: ehci-platform: set hcd->phy to avoid phy_get() in
> > usb_add_hcd()
> > d3d6ef1 usb: host: ohci-platform: set hcd->phy to avoid phy_get() in
> > usb_add_hcd()
> >
> > and
> >
> > c567fb3 clk: cs2000: add Suspend/Resume feature
> 
> I happened to recognize that we need to backport some patches for Ethernet
> driver in H3ULCB and M3ULCB.
> Previous test report showed the result after merging the patch.
> I updated the test result for this information.
> 
> For H3ULCB, the patches have been available in kernel v4.12.
>    144bf6c arm64: dts: h3ulcb: enable EthernetAVB
>    5b9fd19 arm64: dts: h3ulcb: Fix EthernetAVB PHY timing

H3ULCB will need another PFC patch from v4.13-rc1.
30c078d pinctrl: sh-pfc: r8a7795: Add EtherAVB pins, groups and function
 
> For M3ULCB, the patches have been merged into kernel v4.13-rc1.
>    883fae3 arm64: dts: m3ulcb: enable EthernetAVB
>    bdb3656 arm64: dts: m3ulcb: Fix EthernetAVB PHY timing
> 
> Although the scope of backporting is up to v4.12, please also consider for the
> patches in v4.13-rc1.

Best regards,
KHIEM Nguyen

Re: [Fuego] [LTSI-dev] LTSI-4.9 RC1 is out for testing!

[Simon Horman]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:43:24AM +0000, Khiem Nguyen wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> > > Would you submit the following patches to LTSI ML like r-car thermal?
> > >
> > > 5095cb8 usb: of: add functions to bind a companion controller
> > > d4d7512 usb: host: ehci-platform: fix usb 1.1 device is not connected
> > > in system resume
> > > 42a58c9 usb: host: ehci-platform: set hcd->phy to avoid phy_get() in
> > > usb_add_hcd()
> > > d3d6ef1 usb: host: ohci-platform: set hcd->phy to avoid phy_get() in
> > > usb_add_hcd()
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > c567fb3 clk: cs2000: add Suspend/Resume feature
> > 
> > I happened to recognize that we need to backport some patches for Ethernet
> > driver in H3ULCB and M3ULCB.
> > Previous test report showed the result after merging the patch.
> > I updated the test result for this information.
> > 
> > For H3ULCB, the patches have been available in kernel v4.12.
> >    144bf6c arm64: dts: h3ulcb: enable EthernetAVB

The patch above was included in v4.9 and is thus present in LTSI-4.9's base.

> >    5b9fd19 arm64: dts: h3ulcb: Fix EthernetAVB PHY timing

The above patch has already been submitted to and accepted into LTSI-4.9.
> 
> H3ULCB will need another PFC patch from v4.13-rc1.
> 30c078d pinctrl: sh-pfc: r8a7795: Add EtherAVB pins, groups and function
>  
> > For M3ULCB, the patches have been merged into kernel v4.13-rc1.
> >    883fae3 arm64: dts: m3ulcb: enable EthernetAVB
> >    bdb3656 arm64: dts: m3ulcb: Fix EthernetAVB PHY timing
> > 
> > Although the scope of backporting is up to v4.12, please also consider
> > for the patches in v4.13-rc1.

I am sorry but would prefer not to extend the scope of the backports
beyond v4.12 at this point.

Re: [Fuego] [LTSI-dev] LTSI-4.9 RC1 is out for testing!

[Bird, Timothy]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoshihiro Shimoda on Wednesday, August 30, 2017 2:36 AM
> > From: Bird, Timothy
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 1:57 PM
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Khiem Nguyen on August 27, 2017 8:43 PM
> < snip >
> > > > And, I wrote the result in the end of this email as csv format.
> > > >
> > > > Also, our team found some issues (the board cannot resume well) and
> the
> > > > following patches can resolve it.
> > > > Would you do cherry-pick them?
> > > > Or, should I send the patches like general Linux development role? :)
> >
> > My preference is to have the patches in a repository that I can cherry-pick
> from,
> > but also have them posted to the Fuego list so that we can discuss
> individual
> > patch elements on the mailing list.  Since I'm not integrating the patches
> > from the mailing list, they don't have to be as strictly formatted as they
> > would otherwise need to be.  However, I assume you can just use
> something
> > like git send-email to send to the list.   The standard Linux rules for
> > posting patches apply: please send messages in plain text, with the patch
> > inline in the message body (and not as an attachment).
> 
> Thank you for the reply. I got it.

Oops.  I misread the original message.  I thought the reference was for patches
to Fuego.  I shouldn't really speak for the patch contribution policies for LTSI.
Sorry - please ignore what I said, with respect to LTSI patch contributions.
 -- Tim

Re: [Fuego] [LTSI-dev] LTSI-4.9 RC1 is out for testing!

[Yoshihiro Shimoda]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bird, Timothy
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 1:14 AM
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yoshihiro Shimoda on Wednesday, August 30, 2017 2:36 AM
> > > From: Bird, Timothy
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 1:57 PM
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Khiem Nguyen on August 27, 2017 8:43 PM
> > < snip >
> > > > > And, I wrote the result in the end of this email as csv format.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, our team found some issues (the board cannot resume well) and
> > the
> > > > > following patches can resolve it.
> > > > > Would you do cherry-pick them?
> > > > > Or, should I send the patches like general Linux development role? :)
> > >
> > > My preference is to have the patches in a repository that I can cherry-pick
> > from,
> > > but also have them posted to the Fuego list so that we can discuss
> > individual
> > > patch elements on the mailing list.  Since I'm not integrating the patches
> > > from the mailing list, they don't have to be as strictly formatted as they
> > > would otherwise need to be.  However, I assume you can just use
> > something
> > > like git send-email to send to the list.   The standard Linux rules for
> > > posting patches apply: please send messages in plain text, with the patch
> > > inline in the message body (and not as an attachment).
> >
> > Thank you for the reply. I got it.
> 
> Oops.  I misread the original message.  I thought the reference was for patches
> to Fuego.  I shouldn't really speak for the patch contribution policies for LTSI.
> Sorry - please ignore what I said, with respect to LTSI patch contributions.

I got it.
Our team is also interesting with Fuego community's process.
So, your comments are helpful to us.

Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda

>  -- Tim