From: Brendan John Simon <hidden> Date: 2000-01-26 18:31:01
Hi Dan,
How seperate is the Linux/PPC kernel tree to the main kernel tree ?
I download linux-2.2.14 and there is only support for MBX (no BSEIP and
others). I'm not sure if the MBX is the latest either. I suspect it
hasn't changed much anyway.
Can support for all the embedded ports be put into the main kernel
source tree.
That way we can all use the latest stable kernel without having to wait
for you (or someone else) to create a package on the ftp server. It
also reduces the re-porting of board support packages.
How often is the Linux/PPC kernel for workstations (PowerMacs, etc)
committed to the main kernel tree ?
Thanks,
Brendan Simon.
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Dan Malek <hidden> Date: 2000-01-26 15:55:33
Brendan John Simon wrote:
How seperate is the Linux/PPC kernel tree to the main kernel tree ?
It isn't supposed to be, but.....
I download linux-2.2.14 and there is only support for MBX
....I have never merged the later 8xx updates from the 2.3.xx
tree into 2.2.xx. The amount of change is a concern for a "stable"
tree, and the couple of occasions I had the time to do this the
tree was locked for update with Linus. It is on my "to do" list.
Can support for all the embedded ports be put into the main kernel
source tree.
The "main" tree is really the 2.3.xx tree right now, and all of
the 8xx support is there. For some reason, the BitKeeper 2.3.41
version doesn't build. I fixed a couple of problems, but now I
am wondering if it will build for any PMac platform.......
That way we can all use the latest stable kernel without having to wait
for you (or someone else) to create a package on the ftp server.
The only reason I put things on the server was for people that
couldn't get access to a source tree for some reason. I don't
like to do that, but people got used to it so I continued. I
may continue to do so only for a 2.2.xx version.
also reduces the re-porting of board support packages.
We don't have board support packages.......It just reminds me
of horrible hacks people make so they don't have to provide
source code. With complete source code available, we have
to find a better way (and use better terminology).
How often is the Linux/PPC kernel for workstations (PowerMacs, etc)
committed to the main kernel tree ?
Every day? I have the same complaint most people have expressed
lately. I work in the BitKeeper tree, which is supposed to be
the official PPC tree and one step away from kernel.org. I can't
build it for any of my systems. I have to go looking for something
from Paul or Ben or someone else to get something to work......
With 2.4.xx soon to happen, we should all be working from the
latest 2.3.xx tree from kernel.org. If it doesn't work (which
is the case now at least for me), it must be quickly corrected.
I copied linuxppc-dev on this message....so what's the deal with
all PPC sources? When (and from where) will I be able to download
a kernel tree that I can build for anything?
Thanks.
-- Dan
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Alan Mimms <hidden> Date: 2000-01-26 19:00:46
Dan,
Can you suggest a version of the 2.3.x kernel that WOULD build and work? Is
there a simple way to retrieve it (i.e., one I can get from ftp.us.kernel.org)?
I have tried 2.3.34 and found that the 'make menuconfig' and all other ways of
simply generating a config were broken for powerpc in ways that I wasn't able
to understand. (Looked like a missing endif or some such, but I was never sure
even after a couple of hours of study.)
What kernel source version from the "main" tree actually builds and works
pretty well for most/all of the 8xx platforms? I am particularly interested in
the CLLF supporting kernel.
I can live with 2.3.x since I don't need ramdisk support for my intended
application. In fact, I'm very interested in the new cramfs I have read about
as a solution for our flash based file system. I'll probably dink with that a
bit next chance I get.
Thanks for any info...
a
On Wed, 26 Jan
2000, Dan Malek wrote: > Brendan John Simon wrote:
quoted
How seperate is the Linux/PPC kernel tree to the main kernel tree ?
It isn't supposed to be, but.....
quoted
I download linux-2.2.14 and there is only support for MBX
....I have never merged the later 8xx updates from the 2.3.xx
ttree into 2.2.xx. The amount of change is a concern for a "stable"
tree, and the couple of occasions I had the time to do this the
tree was locked for update with Linus. It is on my "to do" list.
quoted
Can support for all the embedded ports be put into the main kernel
source tree.
The "main" tree is really the 2.3.xx tree right now, and all of
the 8xx support is there. For some reason, the BitKeeper 2.3.41
version doesn't build. I fixed a couple of problems, but now I
am wondering if it will build for any PMac platform.......
quoted
That way we can all use the latest stable kernel without having to wait
for you (or someone else) to create a package on the ftp server.
The only reason I put things on the server was for people that
couldn't get access to a source tree for some reason. I don't
like to do that, but people got used to it so I continued. I
may continue to do so only for a 2.2.xx version.
quoted
also reduces the re-porting of board support packages.
We don't have board support packages.......It just reminds me
of horrible hacks people make so they don't have to provide
source code. With complete source code available, we have
to find a better way (and use better terminology).
quoted
How often is the Linux/PPC kernel for workstations (PowerMacs, etc)
committed to the main kernel tree ?
Every day? I have the same complaint most people have expressed
lately. I work in the BitKeeper tree, which is supposed to be
the official PPC tree and one step away from kernel.org. I can't
build it for any of my systems. I have to go looking for something
from Paul or Ben or someone else to get something to work......
With 2.4.xx soon to happen, we should all be working from the
latest 2.3.xx tree from kernel.org. If it doesn't work (which
is the case now at least for me), it must be quickly corrected.
I copied linuxppc-dev on this message....so what's the deal with
all PPC sources? When (and from where) will I be able to download
a kernel tree that I can build for anything?
Thanks.
-- Dan
--
Alan Mimms Packet Engines, Inc. Spokane, Washington [99214-0497]
USA, Earth, Sol, Milky Way, The Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, U0
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
-- Steven Wright?
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Dan Malek <hidden> Date: 2000-01-26 19:36:47
Alan Mimms wrote:
What kernel source version from the "main" tree actually builds and works
pretty well for most/all of the 8xx platforms? I am particularly interested in
the CLLF supporting kernel.
The last 2.3.xx kernel I used was 2.3.18. Since I have customers
building real products, all I have been using is 2.2.13.
Recently, I have been trying to get 2.3.xx updated with 8xx
modifications (like the FEC for the CLLF), but I have been
spending time just making the current tree build properly.
If you want 8xx that works, use the 2.2.13 kernel, and update
the FEC driver from the source on ppc.kernel.org. That is all
I have been using for months.
-- Dan
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Alan Mimms <hidden> Date: 2000-01-26 21:06:44
Thank you. However, since I started out with the 2.2.13 sources and found
they just didn't work really at all on the CLLF (a driver bug somewhere? I've
never done the diffs to try to find out.), I abandoned that approach and
relucantly went with the source tree you posted. As you pointed out earlier
today, going with the real (ftp.kernel.org) source trees has huge advantages if
you can make it work for you. But I failed on that path.
Now I'm wondering if I'll encounter the same sorts of difficulties with the
2.3.x kernel (2.3.18 might be the best place to start?). Do you have a feeling
for whether the CLLF board will work with 2.3.18? Certainly the 2.2.13 from
the ftp.us.kernel.org did NOT work, even configured precisely as your kernel
was configured.
Thanks very much, Dan. You're helping me a LOT. I hope someday to be able to
give back what I'm taking during this process, but I gotta get started first.
a
On Wed, 26
Jan 2000, Dan Malek wrote: > Alan Mimms wrote: > > >
quoted
What kernel source version from the "main" tree actually builds and works
pretty well for most/all of the 8xx platforms? I am particularly interested in
the CLLF supporting kernel.
The last 2.3.xx kernel I used was 2.3.18. Since I have customers
building real products, all I have been using is 2.2.13.
Recently, I have been trying to get 2.3.xx updated with 8xx
modifications (like the FEC for the CLLF), but I have been
spending time just making the current tree build properly.
If you want 8xx that works, use the 2.2.13 kernel, and update
the FEC driver from the source on ppc.kernel.org. That is all
I have been using for months.
-- Dan
--
Alan Mimms Packet Engines, Inc. Spokane, Washington [99214-0497]
USA, Earth, Sol, Milky Way, The Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, U0
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
-- Steven Wright?
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Dan Malek <hidden> Date: 2000-01-26 21:30:38
Alan Mimms wrote:
Thank you. However, since I started out with the 2.2.13 sources and found
they just didn't work really at all on the CLLF
Huh? They should. The only bug was the FEC driver.
....... Do you have a feeling
for whether the CLLF board will work with 2.3.18?
As well as anything else will.....
... Certainly the 2.2.13 from
the ftp.us.kernel.org did NOT work, even configured precisely as your kernel
was configured.
Of course not. I sometimes wonder why I bother posting messages
and writing development notes......The 2.2.xx kernels do not have
any up to date 8xx functions. You must use the tar files from
ppc.kernel.org that I have updated......
-- Dan
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Alan Mimms <hidden> Date: 2000-01-26 21:45:25
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Dan Malek wrote:
Alan Mimms wrote:
quoted
... Certainly the 2.2.13 from
the ftp.us.kernel.org did NOT work, even configured precisely as your kernel
was configured.
Of course not. I sometimes wonder why I bother posting messages
and writing development notes......The 2.2.xx kernels do not have
any up to date 8xx functions. You must use the tar files from
ppc.kernel.org that I have updated......
Apologies for my lack of attention. Perhaps I missed the relevant bits from
your notes.
a
--
Alan Mimms Packet Engines, Inc. Spokane, Washington [99214-0497]
USA, Earth, Sol, Milky Way, The Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, U0
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
-- Steven Wright?
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Bill Roman <hidden> Date: 2000-01-26 22:36:15
Alan Mimms wrote:
I have tried 2.3.34 and found that the 'make menuconfig' and all other ways of
simply generating a config were broken for powerpc in ways that I wasn't able
to understand.
As of 2.3.33 (from kernel.org), at lines 88 and 90 in arch/ppc/config.in
(shortly after "comment 'General setup'"), "else if" should be "elif". Shell
scripts are not C :-)
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Graham Stoney <hidden> Date: 2000-01-27 00:45:24
Dan Malek writes:
Alan Mimms wrote:
quoted
Thank you. However, since I started out with the 2.2.13 sources and found
they just didn't work really at all on the CLLF
Huh? They should. The only bug was the FEC driver.
There were also changes to arch/ppc/kernel/head.S required to get 2.2.13 from
ftp.ppc.kernel.org. to work on the CLLF boards.
Alan, in case you aren't aware, these changes are included in the kit at:
ftp://mail.netx4.com/pub/cllf-2.2.13.tgz
This should be your starting point if you wish to switch to 2.2.x on the
CLLF's.
Of course not. I sometimes wonder why I bother posting messages
and writing development notes......The 2.2.xx kernels do not have
any up to date 8xx functions. You must use the tar files from
ppc.kernel.org that I have updated......
Well, I for one am particularly glad you do -- I sure read 'em! I try to
point others to them too; most newcomers don't realise that you've already
answered their question before they ask...
Regards,
Graham
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Graham Stoney <hidden> Date: 2000-01-27 00:58:54
Alan Mimms writes:
In fact, I'm very interested in the new cramfs I have read about as a
solution for our flash based file system.
cramfs sure looks interesting as an alternative to an initrd uncompressed
ramdisk or romfs.
A question for the knowledgeable about memory usage efficiency of Linux's
regular ramdisk though: does the kernel share read-only program text space
directly with the binary image data in the ramdisk, or does it copy the data
from the ramdisk when it execs a program?
Thanks,
Graham
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <hidden> Date: 2000-01-27 01:53:50
On 27-Jan-00 Graham Stoney wrote:
Alan Mimms writes:
quoted
In fact, I'm very interested in the new cramfs I have read about as a
solution for our flash based file system.
cramfs sure looks interesting as an alternative to an initrd uncompressed
ramdisk or romfs.
A question for the knowledgeable about memory usage efficiency of Linux's
regular ramdisk though: does the kernel share read-only program text space
directly with the binary image data in the ramdisk, or does it copy the data
from the ramdisk when it execs a program?
I've done an alternative called "zbd" (compressed block/boot device). We use
it for our flash images. Its essentially the same as a ramdisk/initrd, but
each block is individually compressed. We leave the image in flash and mount
the root filesystem (ext2) from it. The implementation is almost identical to
the ramdisk code, and they could be folded together: I just haven't done that
yet.
J
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/