Re: [Development] kernel-power
 

I said this in the main kernel power 49 thread, but I guess this is more of a development topic - I suggest, pali, that instead of struggling with the repositories constantly not working correctly and the package interface not seeing certain versions of kernel-power, you should just upload future versions of kernel-power with a slightly different name, "kernel-power2-[flasher/modules/whatever]" instead of "kernel-power-[flasher/modules/whatever]".

This would give you a fresh start in the repository, which, hopefully, would let you have the new versions show up in the package interface and thus be promotable correctly. I think the benefit to the users outweights any advantage to keeping the updates within the same package 'line' in the repo.

Re: [Development] kernel-power
 

Pali, can you add module for hardware aes acceleration (omap-aes?)

A separate package may be needed to update NOLO though...

Re: [Development] kernel-power
 

@Mentalist Traceur: I do not want to forking extras packages. At least installation via Hildon Application Manager or apt-get working...

@Hurrian: Updating crytical part NOLO = bootloader is not acceptable (only if Nokia release it officialy). And this is unofficial build and may damage devices....

Re: [Development] kernel-power
 

pali, and if you're never able to promote power48 out of extras-devel? What's the point of avoiding forking if not-forking just means the newest versions will be sitting stuck outside the repos behind power48 or at best sitting stuck within -devel anyway?

Re: [Development] kernel-power
 

I second that. Everyone interested will have possibility to switch into "fork", and people not so knowledgeable to do so, should - at this point - avoid updating from KP48 entirely.

to be honest, at some point every user install KP "for the first time", so version with higher number - even if it's fork - it's obvious choice. Also, "forking" allow possibility to promote into -testing and -extras, so less non-knowledgeable people will be forced to enable -devel just to use stable kernel.

Add to that possibility of using -devel for -devel purposes (instead of many packages scattered as .debs around net) - with semi-stable package @ -testing and stable @ extras - and You got a no-brainer solution.

Of course it's up to You, but I'm pretty sure it's going to happen anyway - so, the sooner, the better.

/Estel

Re: [Development] kernel-power
 

Pali - as a result of my latest findings re DSP driver, SmartReflex and similar stuff I am proposing a change in frequency scheme as follows (MPU/DSP)

instead of:

125/90,250/180,500/360,550/400,600/430,700/430,750/430,805/430,900/430,...

the values

125/90,250/180,500/360,550/400,600/430,720/520,805/600,900/600,...

The reasoning behind is that I have succesfully backported DSP driver from Harmattan(will send you diff file later), plus several other patches for SmartReflex, which allow us to run 805/600 with Smartreflex on absolutely stable (at least on my device). But those patches are for 720 and 800 MHz and I am not sure is it possible to calculate correct SR coefficients for 700/750. Anyway I will try to find those cofficients for 900, not sure if I will succeed.

Also I found the reason why for KP48/49 undervolting which was OK for KP47 no longer works ( DSP faults generated). It is because DSP driver for versions up to KP47 requests minimum OPP3 (i.e. 500MHz) when active , something which is missing in KP48/49. Will be included in new patch. Also this new patch makes bridgedriver compatible with both old and new IOCTL codes, so no different bridgedriver will be needed for 720p.

And TBH the whole overclocking scheme in KP seems semi-wrong in relation to how MPU clocks DSP and how DSP clocks MPU, just trust me on that, it is too complicated for short explanation, and right now I am too lazy to write long one.

P.S. Smartreflex and DSP patches are independant one to another.

Re: [Development] kernel-power
 

Ok, If you think that your patches are complete and stable send it. Then I can include it to kernel-power git tree.

Re: [Development] kernel-power
 

Would it be possible to enable thumb2-support, may be from the sources of the meego kernel for example?

Re: [Development] kernel-power
 

OK, just give me a week or two to be 100% sure they are stable.

@mankir - why is that?!? We do not have applications compiled with thumb/2 AFAIK.

Re: [Development] kernel-power
 

since ubuntu uses thumb2, karmic is the last version which is useable in chroot! Would be nice to use newest versions of (real) firefox, thunar, gimp, inkscape, ...