Re: Novena update; armhf flavor for i.MX6
On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 00:29 +0000, bnewbold@robocracy.org wrote:
> Hello again debian-kernel!
>
> I wrote to this list in December[0] regarding the Novena open hardware
> laptop project[1]; there is now a Debian porting wiki page here:
>
> http://www.kosagi.com/w/index.php?title=Novena/Debian
>
> I met Ben H and bunnie in late December, and then had access to a
> development board again a week ago. I was able to build and boot an SD
> card image using a mainline linux kernel (clean ~3.8 kernel.org checkout
> with custom defconfig), a custom u-boot, and wheezy armhf rootfs
> (instructions at [2]).
I don't see any mention of Novena in the mainline git logs. I also took
a look in some of the likely looking arm-soc branches. Perhaps I'm just
looking for the wrong keywords? Or maybe with all the DT stuff no Novena
specific patches were required?
> It sounds like there has been talk of a unified i.mx5 and i.mx6 armhf
> debian kernel flavor (something like '-mx'),
I wonder if we have now reached the point with all the upstream single
image work where we could have a single flavour for armhf? i.e. a single
generic flavour not -mx (or maybe two, regular and lpae).
Even if we can't do that right now I'd have thought it ought to be
doable by the time we freeze for jessie.
> which would be the place for
> us to submit kernel defconfig tweaks to, and potentially device tree files
> before they are accepted upstream (is there policy for that?).
debian-kernel@ is the place.
defconfigs are in debian/config, you should patch the one for the
flavour concerned.
For general patches backported from upstream (or at the least a relevant
arch maintainer's tree targeting the next merge window) are preferred.
I don't know about Device Tree patches -- I suppose there isn't much
reason to deviate from the upstream first policy. Getting a device tree
for stuff where the code is already upstream into mainline ought to be
pretty easy.
If there are patches which aren't in mainline yet then I would
prioritise getting those into mainline above getting them into Debian's
kernels.
> I have no idea what would be involved in creating or maintaining a new
> flavor[3]. How can I help? Is a proposal required?
Patches! :-)
As I say above we may not need a new flavour at all, but if you did
you'd be looking first at modifying debian/config/armf/defines and
debian/config/armhf/config.flavour. Other potentially interesting places
would be debian/installer/armhf.
Ian.
Reply to: