[GIT PULL] [Maverick] TI OMAP4 2.6.35 L24.9 kernel release

Ricardo Salveti de Araujo rsalveti at rsalveti.net
Tue Aug 31 08:27:40 UTC 2010


On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 03:26:16PM +0800, Bryan Wu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Oliver Grawert <ogra at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > hi,
> > Am Montag, den 30.08.2010, 09:44 -0600 schrieb Tim Gardner:
> >> On 08/27/2010 08:22 PM, Bryan Wu wrote:
> >> > Tim and Lean,
> >> >
> >> > This big change is based on TI OMAP4 2.6.35 L24.9 release, which contains 1400+
> >> > patches. After rebasing on our Maverick master branch, we successfully build
> >> > kernel packages and most functions work fine on TI OMAP4 ES2.0 hardware. So
> >> > please consider to pull this branch to replace our old 2.6.34 kernel.
> >> >
> >> > The following changes since commit 978e830c47ca5de5824ddf3ba9f7d3571da765a7:
> >> >    Leann Ogasawara (1):
> >> >          UBUNTU: Ubuntu-2.6.35-19.25
> >> >
> >> > are available in the git repository at:
> >> >
> >> >    git://kernel.ubuntu.com/roc/ubuntu-maverick ti-omap4
> >> >
> >>
> >> uploaded
> >>
> > i asked for this upload to be rejected for now since there is no way to
> > make sure its not accidentially accepted.
> >
> > the arm team isnt fully equipped with ES2.0 hardware yet, the images do
> > not have ES2.0 bootloaders on them and if a release manager would
> > accidentially accept it, the resulting binary would make the omap4
> > images unbootable.
> > if the build would have been for ES1.0 it would have been fine for beta,
> > but in the current sitiation i'm asking that it gets re-uploaded after
> > the beta release once we have the updated bootloader code on the images.
> >
> > sorry, i would have reacted earlier if i had expected it to end up in
> > the queue before beta so you wouldnt have to do the upload twice ...
> >
> > ciao
> >        oli
> >
> 
> Oliver,
> 
> I'm not sure about whether I need to revert that ES1.0 config deactive
> patch from our GIT tree and ask Tim to help upload.
> Or we just wait for a while and keep the GIT branch intact?

I'd say we should just keep the GIT branch intact and just avoid the package
upload.

Once we have the Beta released, we'll start using just ES2.0, so it'll be OK.

Cheers,
-- 
Ricardo Salveti de Araujo




More information about the kernel-team mailing list