>> > 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 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. Not sure if what comes with fedora is built for armv7 or notbut they do have 3 kernels respectively for sin5i sun5i and sun7i. I'll checkout as soon as I get to use my XZPAD700 again and I'll have an answer for the sun5i core. ATB David
_______________________________________________ ARMedslack mailing list ARMedslack@lists.armedslack.org http://lists.armedslack.org/mailman/listinfo/armedslack