tim.gardner at canonical.com
Tue Dec 7 14:09:33 GMT 2010
On 12/06/2010 09:58 PM, Bryan Wu wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Tim Gardner<tcanonical at tpi.com> wrote:
>> On 12/06/2010 04:29 PM, Dechesne, Nicolas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Tim Gardner<tim.gardner at canonical.com>
>>>> Bryan - I pushed a natty ti-omap4 branch which was initially based on
>>>> Maverick ti-omap4 2.6.35-903.19. The new package version is
>>>> 2.6.35-1100.1, but I'm still working on some build problems. I should
>>> is there any difference between -903.19 and -1100.1? Can you explain
>>> what you've done?
>> No difference between Maverick and Natty other then packaging. The ABI has
>> to be different so that there is no conflict with binary package names.
> Great, that's a good start point for us. I've found the reason of the
> building failure.
> There is no 1100.0 change item in debian.ti-omap4/changelog.
>>>> have it fixed tomorrow.
> I think you will fix it, since it needs to revert the 1100.1 commit.
>>>> Any status updates on rolling ti-omap4 forward to 2.6.37?
>>> we don't have, and won't have a .37 BSP for OMAP4. TI is focusing on
>>> .35 for now because we are adding support for power management. the
>>> current plan is for us to deliver a new .35 kernel with power
>>> management for inclusion in natty. Sebastien will be working with
>>> Bryan to make this. We will have everything ported over to .38 in
>>> February, and we will submit pull request for natty at that time.
>> OK, I guess we'll just carry the .35 kernel versions until y'all are ready
>> with .38
> Thanks Nico and Tim, I will try to handle that with help from Sebastien.
OK, I banged on HEAD a little, so you'll have to reset --hard. It now
Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com
More information about the kernel-team