ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

7 messages, 5 authors, 2007-07-01 · open the first message on its own page

ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

From: Bizhan Gholikhamseh (bgholikh) <hidden>
Date: 2007-06-27 21:41:20

Hi All,
Sorry for asking this question again, I am still not clear on some of
the issues.
Background:
We have developed a custom board based on Freescale reference board:
MPC8555_CDS with MPC8541E processor running Linux 2.6.11 and uboot 1.1.2
version.
 
I would like to update the Linux kernel to the latest available kernel
2.6.21.
Here are my questions:
1- Should I use ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc to build the kernel?
2- I have seen similar filenames under arch/ppc and arch/powerpc, which
one applies to MPC8541E?
3- Once I build the kernel, could I load the kernel with uboot version
1.1.2 or not? if not what I should do?
 
Many thanks in advance,
Bizhan
 

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

From: Kumar Gala <hidden>
Date: 2007-06-28 01:20:41

On Jun 27, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Bizhan Gholikhamseh ((bgholikh)) wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry for asking this question again, I am still not clear on some  
of the issues.
Background:
We have developed a custom board based on Freescale reference  
board: MPC8555_CDS with MPC8541E processor running Linux 2.6.11 and  
uboot 1.1.2 version.

I would like to update the Linux kernel to the latest available  
kernel 2.6.21.
Here are my questions:
1- Should I use ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc to build the kernel?
Move to ARCH=powerpc.
2- I have seen similar filenames under arch/ppc and arch/powerpc,  
which one applies to MPC8541E?
There is support for MPC8541e in both arch/ppc & arch/powerpc.
3- Once I build the kernel, could I load the kernel with uboot  
version 1.1.2 or not? if not what I should do?
I can't remember if u-boot 1.1.2 had support for the device tree or  
not.  If not you can use the cuImage target in arch/powerpc and use  
your existing u-boot. (or upgrade u-boot)

- k

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

From: Bhupender Saharan <hidden>
Date: 2007-06-28 02:30:36

Hi,

All the new development is happening in arch/powerpc  architecure. So it is
good to use this architecure if you are upgrading the kernel. But it might
not work with kernel 1.1.2, As arch/powerpc need a structure like open
firmware for the parameters.


If you want to stick to 1.1.2 u-boot version then you shall use arch/ppc
architecure.

Regards
Bhupi


On 6/27/07, Bizhan Gholikhamseh (bgholikh) [off-list ref] wrote:
 Hi All,
Sorry for asking this question again, I am still not clear on some of the
issues.
Background:
We have developed a custom board based on Freescale reference board:
MPC8555_CDS with MPC8541E processor running Linux 2.6.11 and uboot 1.1.2version.

I would like to update the Linux kernel to the latest available kernel
2.6.21.
Here are my questions:
1- Should I use ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc to build the kernel?
2- I have seen similar filenames under arch/ppc and arch/powerpc, which
one applies to MPC8541E?
3- Once I build the kernel, could I load the kernel with uboot version
1.1.2 or not? if not what I should do?

Many thanks in advance,
Bizhan


_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

From: Erik Christiansen <hidden>
Date: 2007-06-28 08:07:39

On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 08:20:28PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jun 27, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Bizhan Gholikhamseh ((bgholikh)) wrote:
quoted
Here are my questions:
1- Should I use ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc to build the kernel?
Move to ARCH=powerpc.
Would that advice be specific to the MPC8541E?
Encountering a kernel build error with ARCH=ppc, after configuring as much as
possible for MPC8248, I've just tried ARCH=powerpc on linux-2.6.21.5, with this
slightly scary result:
quoted
quoted
  There is no help available for this kernel option.            
  Symbol: EMBEDDED6xx [=n]                                     
  Prompt: Embedded 6xx/7xx/7xxx-based board                   
    Defined at arch/powerpc/Kconfig:384                      
    Depends on: <choice> && PPC32 && (BROKEN || BROKEN_ON_SMP) 
    Location:                                                 
      -> Platform support                                    
        -> Machine type (<choice> [=y])
<<<

(Note: MPC8248 fits in the 6xx group, architecturally, AFAICT.)

At least I can apply a patch (missing from current kernels), to
fix the immediate MPC8248 problem in ARCH=ppc.

For my case then, ARCH=ppc seems to offer more promise.

Erik
(At this early stage, trying to figure which way is up. :-)

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

From: Erik Christiansen <hidden>
Date: 2007-06-28 08:29:15

On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 05:44:30PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
Encountering a kernel build error with ARCH=ppc, after configuring as much as
possible for MPC8248, I've just tried ARCH=powerpc on linux-2.6.21.5, with this
slightly scary result:
Oh dear. Please excuse the noise. That was clearly acute lack of
familiarity with menuconfig.   <blush>

Minus fingerfumbling, ARCH=powerpc starts to build, before coughing up a
bunch of compiler errors:

cpm2_common.c:63: error: 'CPM_MAP_ADDR' undeclared

Is that due to this patch not being accepted?:
   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=8891

If the patch's "State Superseded" means something else fixes the build
failure, then how could I lay my grubby paws on that little gem?

Erik

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

From: Kumar Gala <hidden>
Date: 2007-06-29 03:15:46

On Jun 28, 2007, at 3:36 AM, Erik Christiansen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 05:44:30PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
quoted
Encountering a kernel build error with ARCH=ppc, after configuring  
as much as
possible for MPC8248, I've just tried ARCH=powerpc on  
linux-2.6.21.5, with this
slightly scary result:
Oh dear. Please excuse the noise. That was clearly acute lack of
familiarity with menuconfig.   <blush>

Minus fingerfumbling, ARCH=powerpc starts to build, before coughing  
up a
bunch of compiler errors:

cpm2_common.c:63: error: 'CPM_MAP_ADDR' undeclared

Is that due to this patch not being accepted?:
   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=8891

If the patch's "State Superseded" means something else fixes the build
failure, then how could I lay my grubby paws on that little gem?
It probably means there was a newer version of the patch w/changes  
made to it based on feedback.

- k

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

From: Josh Boyer <hidden>
Date: 2007-07-01 02:04:21

On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 20:20 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jun 27, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Bizhan Gholikhamseh ((bgholikh)) wrote:
quoted
Hi All,
Sorry for asking this question again, I am still not clear on some  
of the issues.
Background:
We have developed a custom board based on Freescale reference  
board: MPC8555_CDS with MPC8541E processor running Linux 2.6.11 and  
uboot 1.1.2 version.

I would like to update the Linux kernel to the latest available  
kernel 2.6.21.
Here are my questions:
1- Should I use ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc to build the kernel?
Move to ARCH=powerpc.
quoted
2- I have seen similar filenames under arch/ppc and arch/powerpc,  
which one applies to MPC8541E?
There is support for MPC8541e in both arch/ppc & arch/powerpc.
Why?  Shouldn't the arch/ppc support be killed if it's in arch/powerpc?

josh
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help