Gordan Bobic wrote: > On 10/14/2011 07:05 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > >> On 10/14/2011 10:54 AM, Chris Tyler wrote: >> >>> Note that the GuruPlug ships with a broken uboot, which uses the wrong >>> machine identifier. To use a mainline kernel, you must munge the kernel >>> machine ID or update the GuruPlug's uboot. >>> >> Ooh, good to know. >> >> >>> The phrase "the kernel we're working with" caught my eye. Which kernel >>> are we talking about? >>> >> I'm specifically thinking of David Marlin's kernel as referenced here: >> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/Fedora_ARM_Kernels >> >> >>> (I've heard but have not verified that the Kirkwood and OMAP patch sets >>> used to be pretty much mutually-exclusive; I haven't tried to build a >>> unified kernel and hope this has been fixed). >>> >> Yuck. I know David has been endeavoring to make his changes mesh easily >> with additional parties adding their own pet board to the SRPM. Most of >> our systems are omap and tegra based so we haven't seriously looked into >> kirkwood support. If somebody wants to add kirkwood support they should >> bear in mind your warning about the broken uboot. >> > > I'm pretty sure that Kirkwood support required for the SheevaPlug has > been in mainline since at least 2.6.35, possibly earlier. Whether OMAP > patches break this, I don't know. > > In fact, Kirkwood is one of the few SoCs that has complete support for > all of the extras, too, in the mainline kernel, too (e.g. crypto engine). > Someone built a 2.6.39 kernel for kirkwood (Dreamplug) by adding a couple of patches to one of my earlier kernel SRPMs (which was also tested on Panda/OMAP), but when we tried it on a 2.6.40 (3.0-based) kernel SRPM the resultant image failed to boot.
I can probably dig up those packages if anyone who has a kirkwood system wants to work on it. d.marlin ========= _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
