[U-Boot] [PATCH] sunxi: improve throughput in the sunxi_mmc driver
From: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
Throughput tests have shown the sunxi_mmc driver to take over 10s to read 10MB from a fast eMMC device due to excessive delays in polling loops.
This commit restructures the main polling loops to use get_timer(...) to determine whether a (millisecond) timeout has expired. We choose not to use the wait_bit function, as we don't need interruptability with ctrl-c and have at least one case where two bits (one for an error condition and another one for completion) need to be read and using wait_bit would have not added to the clarity.
The observed speedup in testing on a A31 is greater than 10x (e.g. a 10MB write decreases from 9.302s to 0.884s).
Signed-off-by: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com --- drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.c index 4edb4be46c81..d36c1689e7b1 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.c @@ -187,15 +187,16 @@ static int mmc_update_clk(struct sunxi_mmc_priv *priv) { unsigned int cmd; unsigned timeout_msecs = 2000; + unsigned long start = get_timer(0);
cmd = SUNXI_MMC_CMD_START | SUNXI_MMC_CMD_UPCLK_ONLY | SUNXI_MMC_CMD_WAIT_PRE_OVER; + writel(cmd, &priv->reg->cmd); while (readl(&priv->reg->cmd) & SUNXI_MMC_CMD_START) { - if (!timeout_msecs--) + if (get_timer(start) > timeout_msecs) return -1; - udelay(1000); }
/* clock update sets various irq status bits, clear these */ @@ -276,18 +277,21 @@ static int mmc_trans_data_by_cpu(struct sunxi_mmc_priv *priv, struct mmc *mmc, unsigned i; unsigned *buff = (unsigned int *)(reading ? data->dest : data->src); unsigned byte_cnt = data->blocksize * data->blocks; - unsigned timeout_usecs = (byte_cnt >> 8) * 1000; - if (timeout_usecs < 2000000) - timeout_usecs = 2000000; + unsigned timeout_msecs = byte_cnt >> 8; + unsigned long start; + + if (timeout_msecs < 2000) + timeout_msecs = 2000;
/* Always read / write data through the CPU */ setbits_le32(&priv->reg->gctrl, SUNXI_MMC_GCTRL_ACCESS_BY_AHB);
+ start = get_timer(0); + for (i = 0; i < (byte_cnt >> 2); i++) { while (readl(&priv->reg->status) & status_bit) { - if (!timeout_usecs--) + if (get_timer(start) > timeout_msecs) return -1; - udelay(1); }
if (reading) @@ -303,16 +307,16 @@ static int mmc_rint_wait(struct sunxi_mmc_priv *priv, struct mmc *mmc, uint timeout_msecs, uint done_bit, const char *what) { unsigned int status; + unsigned long start = get_timer(0);
do { status = readl(&priv->reg->rint); - if (!timeout_msecs-- || + if ((get_timer(start) > timeout_msecs) || (status & SUNXI_MMC_RINT_INTERRUPT_ERROR_BIT)) { debug("%s timeout %x\n", what, status & SUNXI_MMC_RINT_INTERRUPT_ERROR_BIT); return -ETIMEDOUT; } - udelay(1000); } while (!(status & done_bit));
return 0; @@ -404,15 +408,16 @@ static int sunxi_mmc_send_cmd_common(struct sunxi_mmc_priv *priv, }
if (cmd->resp_type & MMC_RSP_BUSY) { + unsigned long start = get_timer(0); timeout_msecs = 2000; + do { status = readl(&priv->reg->status); - if (!timeout_msecs--) { + if (get_timer(start) > timeout_msecs) { debug("busy timeout\n"); error = -ETIMEDOUT; goto out; } - udelay(1000); } while (status & SUNXI_MMC_STATUS_CARD_DATA_BUSY); }
Hello,
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:18:58 +0100 Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com wrote:
From: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
Throughput tests have shown the sunxi_mmc driver to take over 10s to read 10MB from a fast eMMC device due to excessive delays in polling loops.
This commit restructures the main polling loops to use get_timer(...) to determine whether a (millisecond) timeout has expired. We choose not to use the wait_bit function, as we don't need interruptability with ctrl-c and have at least one case where two bits (one for an error condition and another one for completion) need to be read and using wait_bit would have not added to the clarity.
The observed speedup in testing on a A31 is greater than 10x (e.g. a 10MB write decreases from 9.302s to 0.884s).
Signed-off-by: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com
Tested-by: Mylène Josserand mylene.josserand@bootlin.com
Thanks,
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com wrote:
From: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
Throughput tests have shown the sunxi_mmc driver to take over 10s to read 10MB from a fast eMMC device due to excessive delays in polling loops.
This commit restructures the main polling loops to use get_timer(...) to determine whether a (millisecond) timeout has expired. We choose not to use the wait_bit function, as we don't need interruptability with ctrl-c and have at least one case where two bits (one for an error condition and another one for completion) need to be read and using wait_bit would have not added to the clarity.
The observed speedup in testing on a A31 is greater than 10x (e.g. a 10MB write decreases from 9.302s to 0.884s).
Fyi: I've seen significant improvement, but not 10x on A64 (bananpi-m64) with read
Before this change:
=> mmc dev 0 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc0 is current device => fatload mmc 0:1 $kernel_addr_r Image reading Image 16310784 bytes read in 821 ms (18.9 MiB/s) => mmc dev 1 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc1(part 0) is current device => ext4load mmc 1:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 1109 ms (14 MiB/s)
After this change:
=> mmc dev 0 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc0 is current device => fatload mmc 0:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 784 ms (19.8 MiB/s) => mmc dev 1 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc1(part 0) is current device => ext4load mmc 1:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 793 ms (19.6 MiB/s)
Jagan.
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:13:01PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com wrote:
From: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
Throughput tests have shown the sunxi_mmc driver to take over 10s to read 10MB from a fast eMMC device due to excessive delays in polling loops.
This commit restructures the main polling loops to use get_timer(...) to determine whether a (millisecond) timeout has expired. We choose not to use the wait_bit function, as we don't need interruptability with ctrl-c and have at least one case where two bits (one for an error condition and another one for completion) need to be read and using wait_bit would have not added to the clarity.
The observed speedup in testing on a A31 is greater than 10x (e.g. a 10MB write decreases from 9.302s to 0.884s).
Fyi: I've seen significant improvement, but not 10x on A64 (bananpi-m64) with read
Before this change:
=> mmc dev 0 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc0 is current device => fatload mmc 0:1 $kernel_addr_r Image reading Image 16310784 bytes read in 821 ms (18.9 MiB/s) => mmc dev 1 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc1(part 0) is current device => ext4load mmc 1:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 1109 ms (14 MiB/s)
After this change:
=> mmc dev 0 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc0 is current device => fatload mmc 0:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 784 ms (19.8 MiB/s) => mmc dev 1 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc1(part 0) is current device => ext4load mmc 1:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 793 ms (19.6 MiB/s)
Yeah, the smaller the file is, the bigger the gain is. Since you have an almost twice bigger file, the gains are probably just noise at that point and the bottleneck starts to be your MMC.
Maxime
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:13:01PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com wrote:
From: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
Throughput tests have shown the sunxi_mmc driver to take over 10s to read 10MB from a fast eMMC device due to excessive delays in polling loops.
This commit restructures the main polling loops to use get_timer(...) to determine whether a (millisecond) timeout has expired. We choose not to use the wait_bit function, as we don't need interruptability with ctrl-c and have at least one case where two bits (one for an error condition and another one for completion) need to be read and using wait_bit would have not added to the clarity.
The observed speedup in testing on a A31 is greater than 10x (e.g. a 10MB write decreases from 9.302s to 0.884s).
Fyi: I've seen significant improvement, but not 10x on A64 (bananpi-m64) with read
Before this change:
=> mmc dev 0 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc0 is current device => fatload mmc 0:1 $kernel_addr_r Image reading Image 16310784 bytes read in 821 ms (18.9 MiB/s) => mmc dev 1 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc1(part 0) is current device => ext4load mmc 1:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 1109 ms (14 MiB/s)
After this change:
=> mmc dev 0 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc0 is current device => fatload mmc 0:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 784 ms (19.8 MiB/s) => mmc dev 1 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc1(part 0) is current device => ext4load mmc 1:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 793 ms (19.6 MiB/s)
Yeah, the smaller the file is, the bigger the gain is. Since you have an almost twice bigger file, the gains are probably just noise at that point and the bottleneck starts to be your MMC.
Acked-by: Jagan Teki jagan@openedev.com
Hi Jagan,
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 11:36:59AM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:13:01PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com wrote:
From: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
Throughput tests have shown the sunxi_mmc driver to take over 10s to read 10MB from a fast eMMC device due to excessive delays in polling loops.
This commit restructures the main polling loops to use get_timer(...) to determine whether a (millisecond) timeout has expired. We choose not to use the wait_bit function, as we don't need interruptability with ctrl-c and have at least one case where two bits (one for an error condition and another one for completion) need to be read and using wait_bit would have not added to the clarity.
The observed speedup in testing on a A31 is greater than 10x (e.g. a 10MB write decreases from 9.302s to 0.884s).
Fyi: I've seen significant improvement, but not 10x on A64 (bananpi-m64) with read
Before this change:
=> mmc dev 0 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc0 is current device => fatload mmc 0:1 $kernel_addr_r Image reading Image 16310784 bytes read in 821 ms (18.9 MiB/s) => mmc dev 1 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc1(part 0) is current device => ext4load mmc 1:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 1109 ms (14 MiB/s)
After this change:
=> mmc dev 0 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc0 is current device => fatload mmc 0:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 784 ms (19.8 MiB/s) => mmc dev 1 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc1(part 0) is current device => ext4load mmc 1:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 793 ms (19.6 MiB/s)
Yeah, the smaller the file is, the bigger the gain is. Since you have an almost twice bigger file, the gains are probably just noise at that point and the bottleneck starts to be your MMC.
Acked-by: Jagan Teki jagan@openedev.com
Jaehoon doesn't seem to reply at all, can we merge this through the sunxi tree?
Thanks! Maxime
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 09:57:58PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
Hi Jagan,
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 11:36:59AM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:13:01PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com wrote:
From: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
Throughput tests have shown the sunxi_mmc driver to take over 10s to read 10MB from a fast eMMC device due to excessive delays in polling loops.
This commit restructures the main polling loops to use get_timer(...) to determine whether a (millisecond) timeout has expired. We choose not to use the wait_bit function, as we don't need interruptability with ctrl-c and have at least one case where two bits (one for an error condition and another one for completion) need to be read and using wait_bit would have not added to the clarity.
The observed speedup in testing on a A31 is greater than 10x (e.g. a 10MB write decreases from 9.302s to 0.884s).
Fyi: I've seen significant improvement, but not 10x on A64 (bananpi-m64) with read
Before this change:
=> mmc dev 0 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc0 is current device => fatload mmc 0:1 $kernel_addr_r Image reading Image 16310784 bytes read in 821 ms (18.9 MiB/s) => mmc dev 1 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc1(part 0) is current device => ext4load mmc 1:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 1109 ms (14 MiB/s)
After this change:
=> mmc dev 0 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc0 is current device => fatload mmc 0:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 784 ms (19.8 MiB/s) => mmc dev 1 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc1(part 0) is current device => ext4load mmc 1:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 793 ms (19.6 MiB/s)
Yeah, the smaller the file is, the bigger the gain is. Since you have an almost twice bigger file, the gains are probably just noise at that point and the bottleneck starts to be your MMC.
Acked-by: Jagan Teki jagan@openedev.com
Jaehoon doesn't seem to reply at all, can we merge this through the sunxi tree?
Yes.
Reviewed-by: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:46 AM, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 09:57:58PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
Hi Jagan,
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 11:36:59AM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:13:01PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com wrote:
From: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
Throughput tests have shown the sunxi_mmc driver to take over 10s to read 10MB from a fast eMMC device due to excessive delays in polling loops.
This commit restructures the main polling loops to use get_timer(...) to determine whether a (millisecond) timeout has expired. We choose not to use the wait_bit function, as we don't need interruptability with ctrl-c and have at least one case where two bits (one for an error condition and another one for completion) need to be read and using wait_bit would have not added to the clarity.
The observed speedup in testing on a A31 is greater than 10x (e.g. a 10MB write decreases from 9.302s to 0.884s).
Fyi: I've seen significant improvement, but not 10x on A64 (bananpi-m64) with read
Before this change:
=> mmc dev 0 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc0 is current device => fatload mmc 0:1 $kernel_addr_r Image reading Image 16310784 bytes read in 821 ms (18.9 MiB/s) => mmc dev 1 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc1(part 0) is current device => ext4load mmc 1:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 1109 ms (14 MiB/s)
After this change:
=> mmc dev 0 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc0 is current device => fatload mmc 0:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 784 ms (19.8 MiB/s) => mmc dev 1 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc1(part 0) is current device => ext4load mmc 1:1 $kernel_addr_r Image 16310784 bytes read in 793 ms (19.6 MiB/s)
Yeah, the smaller the file is, the bigger the gain is. Since you have an almost twice bigger file, the gains are probably just noise at that point and the bottleneck starts to be your MMC.
Acked-by: Jagan Teki jagan@openedev.com
Jaehoon doesn't seem to reply at all, can we merge this through the sunxi tree?
Applied to u-boot-sunxi/master
Hi Jaehoon,
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:18:58PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
From: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
Throughput tests have shown the sunxi_mmc driver to take over 10s to read 10MB from a fast eMMC device due to excessive delays in polling loops.
This commit restructures the main polling loops to use get_timer(...) to determine whether a (millisecond) timeout has expired. We choose not to use the wait_bit function, as we don't need interruptability with ctrl-c and have at least one case where two bits (one for an error condition and another one for completion) need to be read and using wait_bit would have not added to the clarity.
The observed speedup in testing on a A31 is greater than 10x (e.g. a 10MB write decreases from 9.302s to 0.884s).
Signed-off-by: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com
Any chance we can merge this for the next release?
Thanks! Maxime
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 07:54:47AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
Hi Jaehoon,
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:18:58PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
From: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
Throughput tests have shown the sunxi_mmc driver to take over 10s to read 10MB from a fast eMMC device due to excessive delays in polling loops.
This commit restructures the main polling loops to use get_timer(...) to determine whether a (millisecond) timeout has expired. We choose not to use the wait_bit function, as we don't need interruptability with ctrl-c and have at least one case where two bits (one for an error condition and another one for completion) need to be read and using wait_bit would have not added to the clarity.
The observed speedup in testing on a A31 is greater than 10x (e.g. a 10MB write decreases from 9.302s to 0.884s).
Signed-off-by: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com
Any chance we can merge this for the next release?
Ping?
Maxime
Hi
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 07:54:47AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
Hi Jaehoon,
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:18:58PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
From: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
Throughput tests have shown the sunxi_mmc driver to take over 10s to read 10MB from a fast eMMC device due to excessive delays in polling loops.
This commit restructures the main polling loops to use get_timer(...) to determine whether a (millisecond) timeout has expired. We choose not to use the wait_bit function, as we don't need interruptability with ctrl-c and have at least one case where two bits (one for an error condition and another one for completion) need to be read and using wait_bit would have not added to the clarity.
The observed speedup in testing on a A31 is greater than 10x (e.g. a 10MB write decreases from 9.302s to 0.884s).
Signed-off-by: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com
Any chance we can merge this for the next release?
Ping?
Just curios but what is the result if %s/udelay(1000)/udelay(1)/g in the driver
Michael
Maxime
-- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:37:11PM +0200, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi wrote:
Hi
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 07:54:47AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
Hi Jaehoon,
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:18:58PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
From: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
Throughput tests have shown the sunxi_mmc driver to take over 10s to read 10MB from a fast eMMC device due to excessive delays in polling loops.
This commit restructures the main polling loops to use get_timer(...) to determine whether a (millisecond) timeout has expired. We choose not to use the wait_bit function, as we don't need interruptability with ctrl-c and have at least one case where two bits (one for an error condition and another one for completion) need to be read and using wait_bit would have not added to the clarity.
The observed speedup in testing on a A31 is greater than 10x (e.g. a 10MB write decreases from 9.302s to 0.884s).
Signed-off-by: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com
Any chance we can merge this for the next release?
Ping?
Just curios but what is the result if %s/udelay(1000)/udelay(1)/g in the driver
This will probably speed up the transfer as well, but we don't need that udelay in the first place. We don't have any application or OS to be nice to, so we can just busy loop in order to achieve the higher throughput. Or am I missing something?
Maxime
Hi
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:37:11PM +0200, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi wrote:
Hi
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 07:54:47AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
Hi Jaehoon,
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:18:58PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
From: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
Throughput tests have shown the sunxi_mmc driver to take over 10s to read 10MB from a fast eMMC device due to excessive delays in polling loops.
This commit restructures the main polling loops to use get_timer(...) to determine whether a (millisecond) timeout has expired. We choose not to use the wait_bit function, as we don't need interruptability with ctrl-c and have at least one case where two bits (one for an error condition and another one for completion) need to be read and using wait_bit would have not added to the clarity.
The observed speedup in testing on a A31 is greater than 10x (e.g. a 10MB write decreases from 9.302s to 0.884s).
Signed-off-by: Philipp Tomsich philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com
Any chance we can merge this for the next release?
Ping?
Just curios but what is the result if %s/udelay(1000)/udelay(1)/g in the driver
This will probably speed up the transfer as well, but we don't need that udelay in the first place. We don't have any application or OS to be nice to, so we can just busy loop in order to achieve the higher throughput. Or am I missing something?
One is to try to have less code change and second was to ping in another way to be included
Michael
Maxime
-- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
participants (5)
-
Jagan Teki -
Maxime Ripard -
Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi -
Mylène Josserand -
Tom Rini