[RFC] handhelds-pxa-2.6 -> linux-handhelds-2.6

[RFC] handhelds-pxa-2.6 -> linux-handhelds-2.6

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello openembedded-devel,

  Following the waves of cleanups happening this week, I'd like to
propose to rename handhelds-pxa-2.6*.bb which are recipes to build
kernels from Handhelds.org CVS tree. Reasons are:

1. There's a (newer) convention to have generic package name, i.e.
"linux" in name of kernel recipes.
2. "pxa" there is misleading, as 2.6 tree supports different
architectures. Handhelds.org tree as of now supports PXA, SA, and S3
(Samsung) devices. To the various degrees, but that's improving.

  So, I propose to rename the recipes in question to start with
"linux-handhelds-2.6" ("2.6" is stil important as there's 2.4 tree and
HH.org too).

-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                          mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com

Re: [RFC] handhelds-pxa-2.6 -> linux-handhelds-2.6

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul Sokolovsky schreef:
> Hello openembedded-devel,
> 
>   Following the waves of cleanups happening this week, I'd like to
> propose to rename handhelds-pxa-2.6*.bb which are recipes to build
> kernels from Handhelds.org CVS tree. Reasons are:
> 
> 1. There's a (newer) convention to have generic package name, i.e.
> "linux" in name of kernel recipes.
> 2. "pxa" there is misleading, as 2.6 tree supports different
> architectures. Handhelds.org tree as of now supports PXA, SA, and S3
> (Samsung) devices. To the various degrees, but that's improving.
> 
>   So, I propose to rename the recipes in question to start with
> "linux-handhelds-2.6" ("2.6" is stil important as there's 2.4 tree and
> HH.org too).

Sounds good, wanna prepare some patches?

regards,

Koen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFL8lHMkyGM64RGpERAmCCAKC8ATa/1siWfxlUlH+7lMHDvzDyQQCgte9S
L3dq/HvIzJGGUH1YwqwAakU=
=lr3e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [RFC] handhelds-pxa-2.6 -> linux-handhelds-2.6

[Erik Hovland]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 07:51:07PM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> 2. "pxa" there is misleading, as 2.6 tree supports different
> architectures. Handhelds.org tree as of now supports PXA, SA, and S3
> (Samsung) devices. To the various degrees, but that's improving.

Technically, the pxa is not misleading per se. That recipe only builds a
kernel for pxa devices. But since we are not really targeting one kernel
for several handhelds, I don't see a problem with what you propose.

E

-- 
Erik Hovland
mail: erik AT hovland DOT org
web: http://hovland.org/
PGP/GPG public key available on request

Re: [RFC] handhelds-pxa-2.6 -> linux-handhelds-2.6

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Erik,

Friday, October 13, 2006, 8:34:54 PM, you wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 07:51:07PM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>> 2. "pxa" there is misleading, as 2.6 tree supports different
>> architectures. Handhelds.org tree as of now supports PXA, SA, and S3
>> (Samsung) devices. To the various degrees, but that's improving.

> Technically, the pxa is not misleading per se. That recipe only builds a
> kernel for pxa devices.

  Well that's why I brought this to discussion. By "only builds" do
you mean the current state of affairs or some inherent constraint on
that recipe?

  If first, then true, we have only PXA in "production" (so to say)
level in HH.org CVS. But other archs do catch up. For example, rx3000
(S3) already has support for SD, i.e. pretty suitable to host a Linux
install ;-).

  If you mean the latter, then I don't see anything PXA-specific in
recipe itself. It will build with whatever defconfig is called by
MACHINE. Architecture-dependent gcc options are set outside (e.g.
tune-xscale.conf), and IIRC, there's actually possible to use specific
GCC version to build a kernel if it goes up to that. So, what other
arch dependencies I'm missing?



  The related question is however EABI support on pre-armv5 arhcs.
Koen, can you (possibly, once again ;-) ) elaborate, what we have
here. I hope noone (maybe, except ARM Inc.) talks about no EABI
support on armv4 machines? Maybe it won't be that thumb instruction
(let there be more memory in each of us), maybe there indeed be armv4
and armv5 specific binaries (with armv4 working around that
isntruction), but we will have Angstrom and other coolness on
all machines, right?

> But since we are not really targeting one kernel
> for several handhelds, I don't see a problem with what you propose.

  Yes, I checked this with OE maintainers and as I heard this was
discussed on OEDEM: it's ok to have separate MACHINE (and thus,
kernel) for each device which deserves that (i.e. not just marketing
renaming of another model). However, it's desirable to get rid of
machine dependency for all other packages where it reasonably can be
done (runtime checks and configuration is ok means for that, if
it doesn't lead to gross code size/quality issues and noticable
performance loss; hopefully, we have few cases of that being otherwise
in 10-20 machine-dependent packages we have now).

> E




-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com

Re: [RFC] handhelds-pxa-2.6 -> linux-handhelds-2.6

[Erik Hovland]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 04:23:00PM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 07:51:07PM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> >> 2. "pxa" there is misleading, as 2.6 tree supports different
> >> architectures. Handhelds.org tree as of now supports PXA, SA, and S3
> >> (Samsung) devices. To the various degrees, but that's improving.
> 
> > Technically, the pxa is not misleading per se. That recipe only builds a
> > kernel for pxa devices.
> 
>   Well that's why I brought this to discussion. By "only builds" do
> you mean the current state of affairs or some inherent constraint on
> that recipe?

An inherent constraint of the recipe is that it will build a kernel
which will only run on h3900 and h5400, which are pxa devices, h3600
cannot run a kernel built with the recipe. That is traditionally why we
named the recipes -pxa and -sa.

E

-- 
Erik Hovland
mail: erik@hovland.org
web: http://hovland.org/
PGP/GPG public key available on request

Re: [RFC] handhelds-pxa-2.6 -> linux-handhelds-2.6

[pHilipp Zabel]

On 10/14/06, Erik Hovland <erik@hovland.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 04:23:00PM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 07:51:07PM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > >> 2. "pxa" there is misleading, as 2.6 tree supports different
> > >> architectures. Handhelds.org tree as of now supports PXA, SA, and S3
> > >> (Samsung) devices. To the various degrees, but that's improving.
> >
> > > Technically, the pxa is not misleading per se. That recipe only builds a
> > > kernel for pxa devices.
> >
> >   Well that's why I brought this to discussion. By "only builds" do
> > you mean the current state of affairs or some inherent constraint on
> > that recipe?
>
> An inherent constraint of the recipe is that it will build a kernel
> which will only run on h3900 and h5400, which are pxa devices, h3600
> cannot run a kernel built with the recipe. That is traditionally why we
> named the recipes -pxa and -sa.

How is this an inherent constraint? Looking at a diff between
handhelds-pxa-2.6_cvs.bb and handhelds-sa-2.6_cvs.bb I don't see
anything architecture specific?

regards
Philipp

Re: [RFC] handhelds-pxa-2.6 -> linux-handhelds-2.6

[Erik Hovland]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 05:17:36PM +0200, pHilipp Zabel wrote:
> On 10/14/06, Erik Hovland <erik@hovland.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 04:23:00PM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 07:51:07PM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > > >> 2. "pxa" there is misleading, as 2.6 tree supports different
> > > >> architectures. Handhelds.org tree as of now supports PXA, SA, and S3
> > > >> (Samsung) devices. To the various degrees, but that's improving.
> > >
> > > > Technically, the pxa is not misleading per se. That recipe only builds a
> > > > kernel for pxa devices.
> > >
> > >   Well that's why I brought this to discussion. By "only builds" do
> > > you mean the current state of affairs or some inherent constraint on
> > > that recipe?
> >
> > An inherent constraint of the recipe is that it will build a kernel
> > which will only run on h3900 and h5400, which are pxa devices, h3600
> > cannot run a kernel built with the recipe. That is traditionally why we
> > named the recipes -pxa and -sa.
> 
> How is this an inherent constraint? Looking at a diff between
> handhelds-pxa-2.6_cvs.bb and handhelds-sa-2.6_cvs.bb I don't see
> anything architecture specific?

Well, *ahem* the defconfig that the -sa bb specifies will build a sa
kernel, the defconfig that -pxa specifies will build a pxa kernel.

The recipes themselves do not bild in the constraint. Thanks for double
checking.

E

-- 
Erik Hovland
mail: erik@hovland.org
web: http://hovland.org/
PGP/GPG public key available on request

OT: why cc:? (was: [RFC] handhelds-pxa-2.6 -> linux-handhelds-2.6)

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

Out of interest, why are you cc'ing to
openembedded-devel@openembedded.org? That way we get duplicated mails.
Please only use openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org -- the shorter
form only works by coincidance -- it's not intented.

-- 
Regards,

Michael 'Mickey' Lauer | FreeLancer | http://www.Vanille-Media.de

Re: OT: why cc:?

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Michael 'Mickey' Lauer schreef:
> Out of interest, why are you cc'ing to
> openembedded-devel@openembedded.org? That way we get duplicated mails.
> Please only use openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org -- the shorter
> form only works by coincidance -- it's not intented.

Broken mailer + reply all + too lazy to check who you are sending mail to == madness

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFMT1XMkyGM64RGpERAuzKAKCMaBqu3q0USAluS5n8wY2GDVBnggCcDDbq
kGkS3dnTu4+mXSc3ID0YBIs=
=+kEM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: OT: why cc:?

[Justin Patrin]

On 10/14/06, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl> wrote:
> Michael 'Mickey' Lauer schreef:
> > Out of interest, why are you cc'ing to
> > openembedded-devel@openembedded.org? That way we get duplicated mails.
> > Please only use openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org -- the shorter
> > form only works by coincidance -- it's not intented.
>
> Broken mailer + reply all + too lazy to check who you are sending mail to == madness
>

Try: "Mailer that doesn't include a feature that the one mailer that
koen uses happens to implement".

As for the reply-all, if people would stop e-mailing the non-"lists"
addresses this problem would go away.

Wow, hey, look at that. *Koen* is sending to
openembedded-devel@openembedded.org instead of
openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org (lots of others seem to be
too). Stop sending to the incorrect address and the problem is solved.

-- 
Justin Patrin

Re: OT: why cc:?

[Jamie Lenehan]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 03:38:57PM -0700, "Justin Patrin" wrote:
> On 10/14/06, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl> wrote:
> > Michael 'Mickey' Lauer schreef:
> > > Out of interest, why are you cc'ing to
> > > openembedded-devel@openembedded.org? That way we get duplicated mails.
> > > Please only use openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org -- the shorter
> > > form only works by coincidance -- it's not intented.

Why doesn't openembedded-devel@openembedded.org work? It seems silly
to have to put the lists bit in the email address and it's certainly
not common.

[...]
> As for the reply-all, if people would stop e-mailing the non-"lists"
> addresses this problem would go away.

What are these non-"lists" address you talk about and what are these
duplicates? I don't seem to see any?

-- 
 Jamie Lenehan <lenehan@twibble.org>

Re: OT: why cc:?

[Jamie Lenehan]

On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:28:37AM +1000, Jamie Lenehan wrote:
[...]
> What are these non-"lists" address you talk about and what are these
> duplicates? I don't seem to see any?

Oh, I think I see what those duplicates are now... I have had this in
my .procmailrc for ever:

 #
 # Weed out duplicates...
 #
 :0 Whc: $HOME/Mail/msgid.lock
 | formail -D 65536 $HOME/Mail/cache.dupes
 :0 a:
 dupes

which means I never see duplicates. So I take the duplicates you are
talking about happen from emails being sent to both
openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org and
openembedded-devel@openembedded.org ?

-- 
 Jamie Lenehan <lenehan@twibble.org>

Re: OT: why cc:?

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

Am Sonntag, den 15.10.2006, 10:31 +1000 schrieb Jamie Lenehan:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:28:37AM +1000, Jamie Lenehan wrote:
> [...]
> > What are these non-"lists" address you talk about and what are these
> > duplicates? I don't seem to see any?
> 
> Oh, I think I see what those duplicates are now... I have had this in
> my .procmailrc for ever:
> 
>  #
>  # Weed out duplicates...
>  #
>  :0 Whc: $HOME/Mail/msgid.lock
>  | formail -D 65536 $HOME/Mail/cache.dupes
>  :0 a:
>  dupes
> 
> which means I never see duplicates. So I take the duplicates you are
> talking about happen from emails being sent to both
> openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org and
> openembedded-devel@openembedded.org ?

Exactly.

-- 
Regards,

Michael 'Mickey' Lauer | FreeLancer | http://www.Vanille-Media.de

Re: [RFC] handhelds-pxa-2.6 -> linux-handhelds-2.6

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Erik,

Saturday, October 14, 2006, 6:35:21 PM, you wrote:

[]

> Well, *ahem* the defconfig that the -sa bb specifies will build a sa
> kernel, the defconfig that -pxa specifies will build a pxa kernel.

  Well, OE.dev now uses per-machine overrides for defconfigs, so this
won't be an issue.

> The recipes themselves do not bild in the constraint. Thanks for double
> checking.

  Ok, so we should be pretty safe to do the rename. I've cleared my
tree from otehr patches, so will start on this.


>   The related question is however EABI support on pre-armv5 arhcs.
> Koen, can you (possibly, once again ;-) ) elaborate, what we have
> here. I hope noone (maybe, except ARM Inc.) talks about no EABI
> support on armv4 machines? Maybe it won't be that thumb instruction
> (let there be more memory in each of us), maybe there indeed be armv4
> and armv5 specific binaries (with armv4 working around that
> isntruction), but we will have Angstrom and other coolness on
> all machines, right?

  Koen pointed me to the same old page regarding this:
http://wiki.debian.org/ArmEabiPort . So yes, there're ways to support
both armv4t and armv4 (i.e. thumb-less) archs with EABI. It's separate
question when thumb-less CPUs will be actually supported, but all
needed info for that is available.

  I also went to check what's the state of thumb support for CPUs used
in consumer PocketPC and Palm devices, and (sorry if that's well known
trivia) that only StrongARM SA1110 doesn't support thumb. I annotated
http://handhelds.org/moin/moin.cgi/HandheldHardwareXref with that
(well, I didn't really check OMAPs yet, but I'm sure they are
thumb-able).

  
> E




-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com

Re: [RFC] handhelds-pxa-2.6 -> linux-handhelds-2.6

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Koen,

Friday, October 13, 2006, 8:13:43 PM, you wrote:

[]

>>   Following the waves of cleanups happening this week, I'd like to
>> propose to rename handhelds-pxa-2.6*.bb which are recipes to build
>> kernels from Handhelds.org CVS tree. Reasons are:
>> 
>> 1. There's a (newer) convention to have generic package name, i.e.
>> "linux" in name of kernel recipes.
>> 2. "pxa" there is misleading, as 2.6 tree supports different
>> architectures. Handhelds.org tree as of now supports PXA, SA, and S3
>> (Samsung) devices. To the various degrees, but that's improving.
>> 
>>   So, I propose to rename the recipes in question to start with
>> "linux-handhelds-2.6" ("2.6" is stil important as there's 2.4 tree and
>> HH.org too).

> Sounds good, wanna prepare some patches?

  Ok, here it is: http://bugs.openembedded.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1524

> regards,

> Koen

-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com