[07:20] <ndec> infinity: re: SGX for omap3/armhf. i don't know ;-(
[16:08] <infinity> janimo: *poke*
[16:09] <infinity> janimo: Any chance you'd have some Ubuntu time this week to look at why mono on armel is broken?  It's starting to hold up the world.
[16:10] <i542> hello
[16:14] <i542> i need some help, if a kind soul would spare a few minutes of their time :|
[16:21] <i542> hey
[16:25] <i542> oh well. have fun
[20:37] <david64> Hi...is it possible to build a kernel for a PNA? I've seen some Windows CE devices wich ran on linux...i would like to use ubuntu, because i use ubuntu since version 5, but to be honest, i have no idea how to build a kernel remotly, and get it booting on a win CE device...although i know how to get into bios and how to flash the rom on that device
[20:39] <alexmoldovan1> hello folks..
[20:39] <alexmoldovan1> I have a quck question
[20:39] <alexmoldovan1> after editing /boot/boot.script
[20:40] <alexmoldovan1> do I have to run anything for the changes to be applied? like the equivalent of "grub-update" ?
[20:44] <infinity> alexmoldovan1: flash-kernel
[20:44] <TypoNAM> alexmoldovan1: flash-kernel I believe based off of: http://www.omappedia.com/wiki/Ubuntu_on_OMAP_FAQ#I_want_to_install_Ubuntu_on_external_USB_hard_disk_instead_of_sluggish_SD_card
[20:45] <alexmoldovan1> infinity, TypoNAM thx..
[20:46] <alexmoldovan1> ..rebooting
[20:48] <alexmoldovan1> nice...now I can see boot messages and luks password prompt on my monitor instead of the serial console
[20:48] <alexmoldovan1> :)
[21:40] <cvanvliet> I am trying to do the netboot, following this, http://testcases.qa.ubuntu.com/Install/ARM/NetBoot
[21:40] <cvanvliet> to get 12.04 armel
[21:40] <cvanvliet> for an Overo, and it cannot find the ethernet devices
[21:45] <infinity> cvanvliet: Which means, probably, that our kernel doesn't support your network device...
[21:46] <cvanvliet> ok
[21:46] <cvanvliet> I was fairly sure, but wanted to see if anything I was missing
[21:46] <cvanvliet> thanks
[22:02] <ndec> rsalveti: it would be nice to have robclark's xf86-video-omap in 12.10. we just noticed today that someone packaged it for debian/experimental. who can help on the ubuntu side?
[22:02] <infinity> ndec: If it's in experimental, all we need to do is sync it.
[22:02] <rsalveti> yup
[22:02] <rsalveti> sync should be enough already
[22:03] <infinity> ndec: Does it, like, work?
[22:03] <infinity> ndec: I'm happy to sync it right now.
[22:04] <infinity> Oh, I see a nice RC bug on it. :P
[22:04] <infinity> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671897
[22:04] <ubot2> Debian bug 671897 in src:xf86-video-omap "xf86-video-omap: current binary segfaults, please update to fixed 0.3.0 release" [Grave,Open]
[22:05] <infinity> Filed by the maintainer...
[22:05]  * infinity scratches his head.
[22:06] <infinity> Ahh, it's blocked by http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=667572
[22:06] <ubot2> Debian bug 667572 in src:libdrm "libdrm: please provide OMAP API on armel and armhf" [Wishlist,Open]
[22:06] <infinity> And that may be blocked by our kernel supporting the KMS bits correctly.
[22:06] <robclark> yeah, you'll need to add --enable-expermental-omap-api (or something roughly like that) when building libdrm
[22:07] <infinity> robclark: Plus making sure our kernel has the omap kms bits required.  Is that true in quantal?
[22:07] <robclark> possibly you'll need the upstream omapdrm kernel stuff..
[22:07] <robclark> so should be true in 3.4+
[22:07] <ndec> any upstream since 3.3 would work.
[22:07] <ndec> ah 3.4...
[22:07] <robclark> I think an older version was backported for 3.2
[22:07] <robclark> which is why 12.04 doesn't have it
[22:07] <infinity> Right, don't care about 3.2...
[22:08] <ndec> quantal will be 3.5...
[22:08] <infinity> robclark: Can you verify that our 3.4 kernels in quantal actualy have the right CONFIG bits turned on?
[22:08] <infinity> robclark: If not, filing kernel bugs would be helpful.  If so, then we can do nasty things to libdrm and such.
[22:08] <robclark> perhaps.. can someone point me at the kernel for quantal?
[22:08] <ndec> infinity: on our side we will work with the debian maintainer since we started our own package.
[22:09] <ndec> robclark: it's the linaro kernel, so it does.
[22:09] <infinity> ndec: The Debian maintainer seems to know what he's doing here, he's just waiting on the Debian kernel and libdrm to support what he needs.
[22:09] <infinity> We can certainly move ahead of his packaging for now.
[22:09] <robclark> ahh, ok.. then you are good
[22:09] <infinity> ndec: eh?
[22:09] <ndec> that's the same kernel we use for our releases.
[22:09] <infinity> ndec: We don't use the Linaro kernel.
[22:09] <ndec> infinity: yes, that's what I meant, we will get rid of our packages, and move to the 'upstream' one
[22:09] <ndec> infinity: yes, you do. what else would you use?
[22:10] <infinity> Our omap3 kernel is pure mainline, and our omap4 is the linaro LT sources, but with our configs.
[22:10] <ndec> infinity: sure... that's what i call 'linaro kernel'
[22:10] <infinity> Hence why I asked about the confics.
[22:10] <infinity> configs*
[22:10] <ndec> i see.
[22:10] <ndec> you need DRM_OMAP.
[22:11] <infinity> Is xf86-video-omap usable on all omap platforms (or, rather, the two we ship), or is it poorly named?
[22:11] <ndec> that would be really good for us if you get that as early as possible on 12.10... it's a much better non accelerated X driver at least.
[22:11] <ndec> infinity: robclark has tested it on beagle, iirc
[22:12] <infinity> And omap4 as well?  Or just omap3?
[22:12] <infinity> (This isn't clear to me)
[22:12] <ndec> the only trick indeed is the experimental flag in libdrm, and the new package that results out of it.
[22:12] <robclark> it is supposed to work on on beagle (although perhaps sans sgx stuff)..
[22:12] <ndec> omap4 and omap5 is what we care about these days, so that work on them for sure.
[22:12] <infinity> Mmkay.
[22:13] <robclark> I probably test it more on o4/o5.. but it is intended to support o2+ (but I have no o2 hw, so essentially o3+)
[22:13] <infinity> Yeah, we don't support any omap2 hardware anyway.
[22:13] <robclark> right, I didn't think you'd mind too much if I don't test it on o2 :-P
[22:15] <infinity> Right, so.  I don't have the time this week to own this.  The two best options would be to either file a bug on libdrm and assign it to me (and I'll deal with it later), or better yet, work with the Debian maintainer on getting the upstream stuff in good shape, and either sync when it is, or push it to me because Debian's blocking on something that doesn't affect us.
[22:15] <rsalveti> well, if we got the 2d working fine on beagle it's good already
[22:16] <rsalveti> the current beagle sgx driver is not supported anymore, because of the wrong X abi
[22:16] <ndec> infinity: it's already upstream in libdrm.
[22:16] <infinity> ndec: Yes, I know.  I meant "upstream" as in Debian here, not upstream upstream.
[22:16] <ndec> argh.
[22:16] <infinity> (But I'm happy to just do it directly in Ubuntu too)
[22:16] <ndec> let me file a bug in LP for now...
[22:16] <infinity> Since Debian looks like they'll do it eventually.
[22:17] <infinity> And we can re-sync later.
[22:18] <infinity> ndec: The bug helps, yes.  And assign it to me so it doesn't fall off my radar.  (~adconrad)
[22:18] <infinity> Though, I expect one of you to bug me next week anyway. ;)
[22:19] <ndec> infinity: oops. ubuntu only has 2.4.33 libdrm.
[22:19] <ndec> robclark: do you know is 2.6.33 is 'enough'?
[22:19] <infinity> 2.4.33 is what was in Debian when the maintainer filed the bug claiming that adding the configure flag would fix it.
[22:19] <infinity> So...
[22:19] <infinity> We'll see.
[22:20] <infinity> Anyhow, I might get around to this "after hours", but if it's on work hours, it'll wait a little bit.  Busy week ahead.
[22:20] <robclark> 2.4.33 is min required version
[22:20] <infinity> robclark: Willing to trade after hours Ubuntu development for a Panda5.  Just sayin'.
[22:20] <robclark> :-P
[22:21] <robclark> you might want a slightly newer version if possible.. or at least there were a few things fixed..
[22:21]  * robclark just looking at commit log
[22:21] <robclark> will 12.10 use libdrm 2.4.36 (which doesn't exist yet, but I guess will soon)?
[22:21] <infinity> I'm sure revving from .33 to .35 isn't rocket science.
[22:21] <infinity> We can do that.
[22:22] <infinity> And we can move to .36 when it releases, I'm sure.
[22:22] <infinity> I'll talk to the desktop team about it.
[22:22] <infinity> Put it all in the bug. :P
[22:22] <robclark> in the nearish future, I was planning to push rotation support.. but that will introduce a dependency on some patches that went in after 2.6.35
[22:22] <infinity> But I see no reason we wouldn't want the latest and shiniest, unless it breaks other drivers.
[22:23] <robclark> libdrm is usually safe-ish to take a new version..
[22:23] <infinity> Given the stable ABI, I sure hope it's safe. :P
[22:24] <robclark> well, every now and then you get something like 'nouveau: pull in major libdrm rewrite' ;-)
[22:24] <robclark> (but I didn't hear anyone complain so I guess it worked)
[22:24]  * infinity smirks.
[22:25] <ndec> infinity: i opened bug 1014879
[22:25] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1014879 in libdrm "Enable omap experimental support" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1014879
[22:26] <infinity> ndec: Danke.
[22:26] <ndec> i am not sure i can assign it to you, but i added you explicitely.
[22:26] <ndec> thanks in advance, btw.
[22:26] <infinity> I assigned it to myself, no worries.
[22:30] <ndec> infinity: ok. thx. time out for me , bye ;-)