On Jul 28, 2013 09:52 "Stuart Winter" <m-li...@biscuit.org.uk> wrote:
> > > I noticed RPi patches also not making it into kernel.org. Last > > > weekend > > > I tried to compile a generic 3.10.1 kernel for the RPi and it > > > failed > > > to boot. Rather than patch kernel source for a specific ARM > > > target, > > > are we expected to use the generic kernel and build a device tree > > > binary? > > That's the idea, yes except that you wouldn't have to build the device > tree blob since if support is compiled into the kernel for that > device, > then the DTB would already have been built and would be provided with > the > kernel package. The DTBs are generated by kernel.SlackBuild for the > specific architectures, so once additional support is added, the > architecture name will need to be appended to the list for the > specific > kernel. > > I tried to build an armv6 and armv7 generic kernel, but since the base > line is set to armv6, when armv7 code begins to build, it fails since > the > ARMv6 CPUs cannot execute v7 instructions. I don't understand why you > can > select both CPUs in this case. You need to select ARMv7 to choose the > hardware that has a v7 CPU. I guess the whole thing isn't entirely > complete yet, or perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you can do with it. > Needless to say, I'm building a ganeric armv7 kernel now. > > Thanks for that, I am building a generic armv6 kernel now, using the > bcm2835_defconfig. hoping it will boot later today. This is what I > should have done in the first place rather than trying to make > oldconfig :( then I can make any tweeks it may require. >
_______________________________________________ ARMedslack mailing list ARMedslack@lists.armedslack.org http://lists.armedslack.org/mailman/listinfo/armedslack