[PATCH 00/10] Updated ML300 ML403 patches
Let's keep this conversation on the mailing list. Peter Ryser wrote: Hi Grant and Andrei, I'm glad to see some activity on the linuxppc email alias for the MLxxx boards and appreciate the work put into moving the 2.4 support to 2.6. I just tried to boot the 2.6 kernel with Grant's patches applied to Linus' latest tree on both the ML300 and the ML403 and in both cases end up with the PLB Error LED lit up. Both boards print the messages from the bootloader, print Now booting the kernel and then nothing (but the error LED). Anything you can think of that is going wrong? Hmm, did you use the ml403 and ml300 def configs? What date did you pull Linus' tree? Kumar and Paul were talking today about some serial subsystem breakage on the linux-2.6 tree this weekend... I'll fast forward tonight and try it on my board. Try seeking to commit: 67daf5f11f06b9b15f8320de1d237ccc2e74fe43 That's what I generated the latest patches against. Anyway, there is another issue that I would like to bring up and it has to do with xparameters.h. The xparameters.h file, or more exactly, the xparameters_* file, is automatically generated by EDK and is then used to configure the devices in the Linux kernel at compile time. While I understand the desire to get away from a static device definition to device enumeration at run-time, the current set of patches is a step backwards for users from a useability point of view. Users will now have to modify xparameters*.h by hand which is an error-prone process. Actually, users should *never* modifiy generated files. The intent is that board specific fixups go directly into the top level xparameters.h so that newly generated files don't have to be touched. But yes, I understand what you mean. Additionally, the original 'redefines' are now replaced with redefines in xparameters.h but differently for every board. I suggest we keep the 2.4 methodology until we can come up with a better approach to enumerate devices at run-time. Andrei I are already discussing this. I'm going to change the xparameters redefines to provide a default set of mappings that can be used if xparameters_*.h has the linux specific mappings. However, due to the fact that generated xparam files don't have the Linux redefines if the FPGA engineer doesn't select a linux bsp. I think it's important to allow user defined 'fixups' for their board. (I've personally worked on a couple of projects where the FPGA engineer would not generate the Linux BSP). Design specific fixups can go into the top level xparameters.h without touching the generated file rant BTW; it really bugs me that edk will generate different xparam files depending on the bsp; why isn't there a single standard set of data that is loaded into all xparam files; regardless of software target? Some no-OS targets need the same information that a Linux port needs. /rant I've avoided using the same names as used by the Linux redefines because I don't know how stable the linux bsp naming convention is, and I want to avoid a naming conflict. If you can *guarantee* me that those linux redefines are stable, then I have no problem using them instead of the new defines that are currently in the patch. If they are not; then I'll just do a one-to-one mapping into a non-conflicting namespace, and users can provide custom definitions as needed. This really isn't a big deal anyway; most of this discussion will become moot in short order. Sometime in the next few releases, linuxppc will flip over to using a flattened device tree to pass device information from the boot loader to the kernel. xparameters will drop out of the kernel proper entirely except for the edk-generated device drivers (which is another issue entirely). All the xparam stuff will be extracted into a device tree by u-boot or the zImage wrapper. The kernel just won't care. :) Specific to the patch: XPAR_DDR_SIZE is not the same as XPAR_MEM_*. XPAR_DDR_SIZE is specifically defined by the user as part of the BSP generation and indicates how much memory is available for Linux. This can be (and typically is) the same as the physically available memory but can be less than that. On the other hand XPAR_MEM_* can be the same or a multiple of the physically available memory (aliasing for cached and non-cached accesses). Statically defining the memory size in xparameters_ml403.h is not desirable. This is especially true for the multi-processor FPGA devices that might want to share the physically available memory between themselves. As you can see in embed_config.c; I already discovered this the hard way :( Hmmm, I don't see any XPAR mem defines in xparameters_ml300.h. (I don't have a copy of the linux xparams for ml403 in front of me at the moment) Is this something new? Really, this isn't statically defined anyway. The bootloader (u-boot or zImage) passes the memory size into the kernel; and in
Virtex-4 TEMAC device driver available?
Hi, I'm using linux on several projects running on Virtex2Pro boards utilizing a softcore MAC (OPB EMAC). Recently, we built a new board based on the Virtex 4 FX and I noticed that its hardwired TEMAC differs significantly from the OPB EMAC we used before. Is there already a linux driver for this TEMAC available? I noticed that several patches for basic Virtex-4 support have been posted to this list, but I don't know what kernel these patches are based on, or where I can download a development snapshot. Unfortunately, the public rsync repository at source.mvista.com (where I got the kernel for our Virtex2Pro based stuff from) seems to be discontinued, and I don't see any PPC specific kernel stuff in the git repositories there. Thanks, Patrick
Virtex-4 TEMAC device driver available?
Hi Patrick-san, GSRD of the following URL is downloaded and the driver of mvl is generated by EDK, the Xilinx temac driver and patch for 2.4 will be obtained. http://www.xilinx.co.jp/esp/wired/optical/xlnx_net/gsrd.htm Now, I'm just working temac driver to 2.6 and have not yet completed. Best Regards, Yoshio Kashiwagi - Nissin Systems Hi, I'm using linux on several projects running on Virtex2Pro boards utilizing a softcore MAC (OPB EMAC). Recently, we built a new board based on the Virtex 4 FX and I noticed that its hardwired TEMAC differs significantly from the OPB EMAC we used before. Is there already a linux driver for this TEMAC available? I noticed that several patches for basic Virtex-4 support have been posted to this list, but I don't know what kernel these patches are based on, or where I can download a development snapshot. Unfortunately, the public rsync repository at source.mvista.com (where I got the kernel for our Virtex2Pro based stuff from) seems to be discontinued, and I don't see any PPC specific kernel stuff in the git repositories there. Thanks, Patrick ___ Linuxppc-embedded mailing list Linuxppc-embedded at ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
[PATCH 00/10] Updated ML300 ML403 patches
Hmm, did you use the ml403 and ml300 def configs? What date did you pull Linus' tree? Kumar and Paul were talking today about some serial subsystem breakage on the linux-2.6 tree this weekend... I'll fast forward tonight and try it on my board. Okay, please let me know how this works for you. Try seeking to commit: 67daf5f11f06b9b15f8320de1d237ccc2e74fe43 That's what I generated the latest patches against. Hmm, I only recently switched to using git. Is this number string some kind of a tag that I can synchronize my local git tree to? If so, how? Anyway, there is another issue that I would like to bring up and it has to do with xparameters.h. The xparameters.h file, or more exactly, the xparameters_* file, is automatically generated by EDK and is then used to configure the devices in the Linux kernel at compile time. While I understand the desire to get away from a static device definition to device enumeration at run-time, the current set of patches is a step backwards for users from a useability point of view. Users will now have to modify xparameters*.h by hand which is an error-prone process. Actually, users should *never* modifiy generated files. The intent is that board specific fixups go directly into the top level xparameters.h so that newly generated files don't have to be touched. But yes, I understand what you mean. An EDK user is free to choose arbitrary names for his peripherals. Additionally, Base System Builder uses different names for various boards (historically). With that it is impossible to make static assignments in xparameters.h. If you go back to the 2.4 kernel and have a look at xparameters_ml300.h you can see that the assignment of boards specific parameters to Linux specific parameters is done in there and that xparameters.h is basically used to chose the proper xparameters_* file for a given board. Additionally, the original 'redefines' are now replaced with redefines in xparameters.h but differently for every board. I suggest we keep the 2.4 methodology until we can come up with a better approach to enumerate devices at run-time. Andrei I are already discussing this. I'm going to change the xparameters redefines to provide a default set of mappings that can be used if xparameters_*.h has the linux specific mappings. Thanks. Why not just use the xparameters_ml300.h file created by the system_linux.xmp in the EDK reference design for the ML403 and rename it to xparameters_ml403.h for inclusion into the kernel tree? We could then make a change in EDK, add a parameter that lets the user specify the board he uses, and with that automatically create an xparameters_ml403.h (or any other board for that matter). However, due to the fact that generated xparam files don't have the Linux redefines if the FPGA engineer doesn't select a linux bsp. That's not a recommended flow. It's very easy to create an EDK design with the proper settings and since it is very likely that things change during the design process of the FPGA the small investment into making the proper settings in the tool will save a lot of time in the end. I think it's important to allow user defined 'fixups' for their board. (I've personally worked on a couple of projects where the FPGA engineer would not generate the Linux BSP). Design specific fixups can go into the top level xparameters.h without touching the generated file I strongly believe that this approach fixes things in the wrong place. The correct thing to do is to use EDK to create a proper xparameters_*.h that matches the FPGA design. In your methodology, if the user decides to change the peripheral names in EDK he will have to go back and change the defines in xparameters.h. With the 2.4 kernel methodology that is not necessary as such changes will be represented in a regenerated board-specific xparameters_*.h rant BTW; it really bugs me that edk will generate different xparam files depending on the bsp; why isn't there a single standard set of data that is loaded into all xparam files; regardless of software target? Some no-OS targets need the same information that a Linux port needs. /rant EDK creates an xparameters.h that matches the names of the parameters in the hardware design. However, EDK is capable of assuming other personalities than 'standalone', for example Linux. With the Linux personality it creates the proper files AND directory structure for inclusion into the Linux kernel. Ideally, the source files that are used to create the Linux bsp for a given FPGA design should be included in the kernel tree and be maintained in there (maybe, in the xparameters directory). I'm not so sure though how well this would be accepted in the community. Opinions? I've avoided using the same names as used by the Linux redefines because I don't know how stable the linux bsp naming convention is, and I want to avoid a naming
[PATCH 00/10] Updated ML300 ML403 patches
Peter Ryser wrote: Hmm, did you use the ml403 and ml300 def configs? What date did you pull Linus' tree? Kumar and Paul were talking today about some serial subsystem breakage on the linux-2.6 tree this weekend... I'll fast forward tonight and try it on my board. Okay, please let me know how this works for you. Try seeking to commit: 67daf5f11f06b9b15f8320de1d237ccc2e74fe43 That's what I generated the latest patches against. Hmm, I only recently switched to using git. Is this number string some kind of a tag that I can synchronize my local git tree to? If so, how? Yea, the number is kind of like a raw tag without a name associated with it. The cg-seek command can be used to get you there. (But you also need to have cogito installed) Anyway, there is another issue that I would like to bring up and it has to do with xparameters.h. The xparameters.h file, or more exactly, the xparameters_* file, is automatically generated by EDK and is then used to configure the devices in the Linux kernel at compile time. While I understand the desire to get away from a static device definition to device enumeration at run-time, the current set of patches is a step backwards for users from a useability point of view. Users will now have to modify xparameters*.h by hand which is an error-prone process. Actually, users should *never* modifiy generated files. The intent is that board specific fixups go directly into the top level xparameters.h so that newly generated files don't have to be touched. But yes, I understand what you mean. An EDK user is free to choose arbitrary names for his peripherals. Additionally, Base System Builder uses different names for various boards (historically). With that it is impossible to make static assignments in xparameters.h. If you go back to the 2.4 kernel and have a look at xparameters_ml300.h you can see that the assignment of boards specific parameters to Linux specific parameters is done in there and that xparameters.h is basically used to chose the proper xparameters_* file for a given board. okay Additionally, the original 'redefines' are now replaced with redefines in xparameters.h but differently for every board. I suggest we keep the 2.4 methodology until we can come up with a better approach to enumerate devices at run-time. Andrei I are already discussing this. I'm going to change the xparameters redefines to provide a default set of mappings that can be used if xparameters_*.h has the linux specific mappings. Thanks. Why not just use the xparameters_ml300.h file created by the system_linux.xmp in the EDK reference design for the ML403 and rename it to xparameters_ml403.h for inclusion into the kernel tree? We could then make a change in EDK, add a parameter that lets the user specify the board he uses, and with that automatically create an xparameters_ml403.h (or any other board for that matter). I don't understand what you mean. It sounds like your suggesting I do exactly opposite what you're arguing; hand modify one of the xparameters_*.h files. Are you saying that edk can't generate Linux redefines for the ml403 at the moment? I do *not* think I should replace the edk-generated xparameters_ml403.h with a hacked xparameters_ml300.h file. I'd rather use the generated _ml403 file and change the infrastructure when the Linux redefines are ready. However, due to the fact that generated xparam files don't have the Linux redefines if the FPGA engineer doesn't select a linux bsp. That's not a recommended flow. It's very easy to create an EDK design with the proper settings and since it is very likely that things change during the design process of the FPGA the small investment into making the proper settings in the tool will save a lot of time in the end. I understand that it's not *recommended*; I'm just saying it's not always *reality* :p I think it's important to allow user defined 'fixups' for their board. (I've personally worked on a couple of projects where the FPGA engineer would not generate the Linux BSP). Design specific fixups can go into the top level xparameters.h without touching the generated file I strongly believe that this approach fixes things in the wrong place. The correct thing to do is to use EDK to create a proper xparameters_*.h that matches the FPGA design. In your methodology, if the user decides to change the peripheral names in EDK he will have to go back and change the defines in xparameters.h. With the 2.4 kernel methodology that is not necessary as such changes will be represented in a regenerated board-specific xparameters_*.h ??? Yes; but I already said that I'll change the patch to use the Xilinx redefines. My argument is simply that *if* changes are required, there is a way for the user to do it. In the normal (recommended) case; nothing will need to be done.
General GIT MO question
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: I appreciate you feedback on the E12/UartLite stuff I posted earlier. no problem I have gotten sufficiently compitent with git that I can use it as a source code manager. But despite perusing through a fairly significant amount of git docs, I have not really grasped how to get from how I work to what seems to be the norm for patch subimissions. Heh, your tracking the same path of pain that I went through 2 months ago. :) Fixing a bug or adding a small feature is one thing. You have a base, and and end result and a simple diff. But I am porting to a whole new board, adding support for two new serial drivers, and adding boot to init serial IO support - all at once, as well as dealing with bugs and mis-steps along the way. I can figure out how to get git to do alot of nice things, but I can not figure out how to get it to produce a nice modularized set of patches that includes only those things relevant for kernel submission. Here's what I do, assuming that my changes are in the 'master' branch, and 'master' is based off of 'origin'. BTW, I also use the cogito with git. 1. create a new branch 'cleanup' off of origin so it doesn't have any of my patches in it. $ git branch cleanup origin $ git checkout origin 2. get a list of all my patches; I use 'cg log' and look for the sha1 'commit' tags. $ cg log master p 3a. start 'cherry-picking' my patches one-by-one from 'master' to 'cleanup'. Feel free to use this to reorder patches $ git cherry-pick -r first-commit-sha1 $ git cherry-pick -r second-commit-sha1 $ git cherry-pick -r third-commit-sha1 3b. If I want to modify the patch before committing; I use the -n flag to only apply the changes; clean up the change, then commit it with the -c flag. Also do this if a patch conflicts. $ git cherry-pick -r -n messy-commit-sha1 $ edit stuff $ cg commit -c messy-commit-sha1 # Use the original change message 3c. Cherry picking works for merging patches too $ git cherry-pick -r -n partial-patch1 $ git cherry-pick -r -n partial-patch2 $ git cherry-pick -r -n partial-patch3 $ cg commit 4. generate patch files for submission to the mailing list $ git-format-patch -o output dir origin cleanup 5. (optional) make 'cleanup' the new 'master $ git branch -f master cleanup $ git checkout master I am looking for a clue here. How do you produce a clean set of granular patches including only what you want and not the all the steps and mis-steps along the way ? -- Grant Likely, B.Sc. P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. (403) 663-0761
[PATCH 00/10] Updated ML300 ML403 patches
I don't understand what you mean. It sounds like your suggesting I do exactly opposite what you're arguing; hand modify one of the xparameters_*.h files. Are you saying that edk can't generate Linux redefines for the ml403 at the moment? Yes, it can. It looks they are not present in the xparameters_ml403.h that you submitted as part of your patch. I'll send you the automatically generated file in a seperate email. I do *not* think I should replace the edk-generated xparameters_ml403.h with a hacked xparameters_ml300.h file. I'd rather use the generated _ml403 file and change the infrastructure when the Linux redefines are ready. See above. BTW, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the process in EDK. Let me know if I can help you step through it. That's not a recommended flow. It's very easy to create an EDK design with the proper settings and since it is very likely that things change during the design process of the FPGA the small investment into making the proper settings in the tool will save a lot of time in the end. I understand that it's not *recommended*; I'm just saying it's not always *reality* :p Yeah, that's true for user projects. However, I hope that we can get the default included in the Linux 2.6 kernel right. Yes; but I already said that I'll change the patch to use the Xilinx redefines. My argument is simply that *if* changes are required, there is a way for the user to do it. In the normal (recommended) case; nothing will need to be done. (think Larry Wall's quote: easy things easy; hard things possible) When it is needed; the fixups will be in xparameters.h; not xparameters_*.h; and they'll be for a specific port. The fixups will only need to be done once per project (most likely). I'm not sure that I follow your argument here. My point is that the Linux redefines are useful to more than just Linux ports. Don't you think standalone apps could also benefit from a sane-set of defines for peripherals? In other words; shouldn't the Linux redefines be always available (and called something more generic)? I see what you mean and I tend to agree. okay, I'll change the patch to use those names. Great. Thanks. - Peter
[PATCH 00/10] Updated ML300 ML403 patches
Peter Ryser wrote: I don't understand what you mean. It sounds like your suggesting I do exactly opposite what you're arguing; hand modify one of the xparameters_*.h files. Are you saying that edk can't generate Linux redefines for the ml403 at the moment? Yes, it can. It looks they are not present in the xparameters_ml403.h that you submitted as part of your patch. I'll send you the automatically generated file in a seperate email. okay good; I misunderstood what you were saying. I pulled xparameters_ml403.h out of the ref design w/ the standalone bsp. I just haven't bothered trying to generating the Linux bsp yet. I do *not* think I should replace the edk-generated xparameters_ml403.h with a hacked xparameters_ml300.h file. I'd rather use the generated _ml403 file and change the infrastructure when the Linux redefines are ready. See above. BTW, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the process in EDK. Let me know if I can help you step through it. okay, I'll ping you when I've got questions. I understand that it's not *recommended*; I'm just saying it's not always *reality* :p Yeah, that's true for user projects. However, I hope that we can get the default included in the Linux 2.6 kernel right. yes, definately Yes; but I already said that I'll change the patch to use the Xilinx redefines. My argument is simply that *if* changes are required, there is a way for the user to do it. In the normal (recommended) case; nothing will need to be done. (think Larry Wall's quote: easy things easy; hard things possible) When it is needed; the fixups will be in xparameters.h; not xparameters_*.h; and they'll be for a specific port. The fixups will only need to be done once per project (most likely). I'm not sure that I follow your argument here. I'll compose my answer in code; watch for patches. :) btw, once Linus closes the 2.6.16 merge window, it looks like we may be able to use the powerpc.git tree for tracking these changes. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc. P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. (403) 663-0761
[PATCH 00/10] Updated ML300 ML403 patches
John Bonesio wrote: Hello, I work in the Xilinx software group. I'm replying to this email thread because Grant suggested there be a GIT tree for Virtex specific changes. I was told today that we may be able to use Paul's linuxppc tree. I'm going to ask him later today. I am wondering if the open source community would prefer or see a benefit to Xilinx owning/hosting the source trees (CVS or GIT or whatever) for our drivers, and in particular the Linux adapter drivers. If we did this we would provide a web site with the information along with instructions on how to submit changes. We are exploring this idea and wanted to know what others thought of this. Let's just keep things on the mailing list; it's the natural place to discuss issues. If the traffic gets too high, we can do something different. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc. P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. (403) 663-0761
[PATCH 00/10] Updated ML300 ML403 patches
Hello, I work in the Xilinx software group. I'm replying to this email thread because Grant suggested there be a GIT tree for Virtex specific changes. I am wondering if the open source community would prefer or see a benefit to Xilinx owning/hosting the source trees (CVS or GIT or whatever) for our drivers, and in particular the Linux adapter drivers. If we did this we would provide a web site with the information along with instructions on how to submit changes. We are exploring this idea and wanted to know what others thought of this. - John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linuxppc-embedded-bounces at ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of Grant Likely Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:41 AM To: peter.ryser Cc: Grant Likely; Andrei Konovalov; rick.moleres; linuxppc-embedded Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Updated ML300 ML403 patches Peter Ryser wrote: Hmm, did you use the ml403 and ml300 def configs? What date did you pull Linus' tree? Kumar and Paul were talking today about some serial subsystem breakage on the linux-2.6 tree this weekend... I'll fast forward tonight and try it on my board. Okay, please let me know how this works for you. Try seeking to commit: 67daf5f11f06b9b15f8320de1d237ccc2e74fe43 That's what I generated the latest patches against. Hmm, I only recently switched to using git. Is this number string some kind of a tag that I can synchronize my local git tree to? If so, how? Yea, the number is kind of like a raw tag without a name associated with it. The cg-seek command can be used to get you there. (But you also need to have cogito installed) Anyway, there is another issue that I would like to bring up and it has to do with xparameters.h. The xparameters.h file, or more exactly, the xparameters_* file, is automatically generated by EDK and is then used to configure the devices in the Linux kernel at compile time. While I understand the desire to get away from a static device definition to device enumeration at run-time, the current set of patches is a step backwards for users from a useability point of view. Users will now have to modify xparameters*.h by hand which is an error-prone process. Actually, users should *never* modifiy generated files. The intent is that board specific fixups go directly into the top level xparameters.h so that newly generated files don't have to be touched. But yes, I understand what you mean. An EDK user is free to choose arbitrary names for his peripherals. Additionally, Base System Builder uses different names for various boards (historically). With that it is impossible to make static assignments in xparameters.h. If you go back to the 2.4 kernel and have a look at xparameters_ml300.h you can see that the assignment of boards specific parameters to Linux specific parameters is done in there and that xparameters.h is basically used to chose the proper xparameters_* file for a given board. okay Additionally, the original 'redefines' are now replaced with redefines in xparameters.h but differently for every board. I suggest we keep the 2.4 methodology until we can come up with a better approach to enumerate devices at run-time. Andrei I are already discussing this. I'm going to change the xparameters redefines to provide a default set of mappings that can be used if xparameters_*.h has the linux specific mappings. Thanks. Why not just use the xparameters_ml300.h file created by the system_linux.xmp in the EDK reference design for the ML403 and rename it to xparameters_ml403.h for inclusion into the kernel tree? We could then make a change in EDK, add a parameter that lets the user specify the board he uses, and with that automatically create an xparameters_ml403.h (or any other board for that matter). I don't understand what you mean. It sounds like your suggesting I do exactly opposite what you're arguing; hand modify one of the xparameters_*.h files. Are you saying that edk can't generate Linux redefines for the ml403 at the moment? I do *not* think I should replace the edk-generated xparameters_ml403.h with a hacked xparameters_ml300.h file. I'd rather use the generated _ml403 file and change the infrastructure when the Linux redefines are ready. However, due to the fact that generated xparam files don't have the Linux redefines if the FPGA engineer doesn't select a linux bsp. That's not a recommended flow. It's very easy to create an EDK design with the proper settings and since it is very likely that things change during the design process of the FPGA the small investment into making the proper settings in the tool will save a lot of time in the end. I understand that it's not *recommended*; I'm just saying it's not always *reality* :p I think it's important to allow user defined 'fixups' for their board. (I've personally worked on a couple of projects where the FPGA
[PATCH] PPC32 8xx: support for the physmapped flash on m8xx
Implemented more correct way to support physmapped flash on m8xx
than map in mtd.
The areas intended to contain bootloader are protected readonly.
Note that CFI and JEDEC stuff should be configured properly in order
this to work, e.g. for 885/86x CFI should support 4-chip flash interleave.
Also fixed compilation warning.
Signed-off-by: Vitaly Bordug vbordug at ru.mvista.com
---
arch/ppc/syslib/m8xx_setup.c | 50 ++
1 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/ppc/syslib/m8xx_setup.c b/arch/ppc/syslib/m8xx_setup.c
index 688616d..efe3308 100644
--- a/arch/ppc/syslib/m8xx_setup.c
+++ b/arch/ppc/syslib/m8xx_setup.c
@@ -34,6 +34,13 @@
#include linux/seq_file.h
#include linux/root_dev.h
+#if defined(CONFIG_MTD) defined(CONFIG_MTD_PHYSMAP)
+#include linux/mtd/partitions.h
+#include linux/mtd/physmap.h
+#include linux/mtd/mtd.h
+#include linux/mtd/map.h
+#endif
+
#include asm/mmu.h
#include asm/reg.h
#include asm/residual.h
@@ -49,6 +56,34 @@
#include ppc8xx_pic.h
+#ifdef CONFIG_MTD_PHYSMAP
+#define MPC8xxADS_BANK_WIDTH 4
+#endif
+
+#define MPC8xxADS_U_BOOT_SIZE 0x8
+#define MPC8xxADS_FREE_AREA_OFFSET MPC8xxADS_U_BOOT_SIZE
+
+#if defined(CONFIG_MTD_PARTITIONS)
+ /*
+ NOTE: bank width and interleave relative to the installed flash
+ should have been chosen within MTD_CFI_GEOMETRY options.
+ */
+static struct mtd_partition mpc8xxads_partitions[] = {
+ {
+ .name = bootloader,
+ .size = MPC8xxADS_U_BOOT_SIZE,
+ .offset = 0,
+ .mask_flags = MTD_WRITEABLE, /* force read-only */
+ }, {
+ .name = User FS,
+ .offset = MPC8xxADS_FREE_AREA_OFFSET
+ }
+};
+
+#define mpc8xxads_part_num (sizeof (mpc8xxads_partitions) / sizeof
(mpc8xxads_partitions[0]))
+
+#endif
+
static int m8xx_set_rtc_time(unsigned long time);
static unsigned long m8xx_get_rtc_time(void);
void m8xx_calibrate_decr(void);
@@ -71,6 +106,10 @@ board_init(void)
void __init
m8xx_setup_arch(void)
{
+#if defined(CONFIG_MTD) defined(CONFIG_MTD_PHYSMAP)
+ bd_t *binfo = (bd_t *)__res;
+#endif
+
/* Reset the Communication Processor Module.
*/
m8xx_cpm_reset();
@@ -106,6 +145,17 @@ m8xx_setup_arch(void)
}
#endif
#endif
+
+#if defined (CONFIG_MPC86XADS) || defined (CONFIG_MPC885ADS)
+#if defined(CONFIG_MTD_PHYSMAP)
+ physmap_configure(binfo-bi_flashstart, binfo-bi_flashsize,
+ MPC8xxADS_BANK_WIDTH, NULL);
+#ifdef CONFIG_MTD_PARTITIONS
+ physmap_set_partitions(mpc8xxads_partitions, mpc8xxads_part_num);
+#endif /* CONFIG_MTD_PARTITIONS */
+#endif /* CONFIG_MTD_PHYSMAP */
+#endif
+
board_init();
}
[PATCH 00/10] Updated ML300 ML403 patches
Peter Ryser wrote: Hmm, did you use the ml403 and ml300 def configs? What date did you pull Linus' tree? Kumar and Paul were talking today about some serial subsystem breakage on the linux-2.6 tree this weekend... I'll fast forward tonight and try it on my board. Okay, please let me know how this works for you. Yeah, the head of Linus' tree is busted. Doing a cg-seek 67daf5f11f06b9b15f8320de1d237ccc2e74fe43 will work, but you first need to remove the following line from arch/ppc/kernel/ppc_ksyms.c EXPORT_SYMBOL(get_wchan); The fix will be in post -rc1 Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc. P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. (403) 663-0761
Linux-2.4.31 porting
Hello u all! Have you already ported a linux-2.4.31 to be used on a PPC mpc8272 (or anyone from the family) based board? The problem that I have is that i don't have console. As far as i could debug, the kernel stucks on my_console_write (in arch/ppc/cpm2_io/uart.c), waiting for transmitter fifo to empty (line 2298 - while (bdp-cbd_sc BD_SC_READY)). Any suggestions will be highly welcomed! Thanks for reading! Best regards, Filipe. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/attachments/20060117/7b306f2a/attachment.htm
[PATCH 00/10] Updated ML300 ML403 patches
Here's another lurker poking his head up... Grant Likely wrote: John Bonesio wrote: Hello, I work in the Xilinx software group. I'm replying to this email thread because Grant suggested there be a GIT tree for Virtex specific changes. I was told today that we may be able to use Paul's linuxppc tree. I'm going to ask him later today. Probably a newbie question...my understanding is that kernel.org is the preferred repository for PPC-specific code these days, correct? So the a- bove is referring to Xilinx-specific PPC code? From what I can see on LXR and kernel.org neither has any Xilinx-related code... I am wondering if the open source community would prefer or see a benefit to Xilinx owning/hosting the source trees (CVS or GIT or whatever) for our drivers, and in particular the Linux adapter drivers. If we did this we would provide a web site with the information along with instructions on how to submit changes. We are exploring this idea and wanted to know what others thought of this. Let's just keep things on the mailing list; it's the natural place to discuss issues. If the traffic gets too high, we can do something different. Re keeping discussion on linuxppc-embedded, sure. Re the hosting of source trees, I'd definitely like to see Xilinx take that on if the stuff dis- cussed above doesn't come to pass. We need to have a relatively stable, long-term primary source for such code. Tom Ziomek -- /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | \ / | Email to user 'CTZ001' XAgainst HTML | at 'email.mot.com' / \ in e-mail news |
[PATCH 00/10] Updated ML300 ML403 patches
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Grant Likely wrote: T Ziomek wrote: Grant Likely wrote: John Bonesio wrote: . . . I'm replying to this email thread because Grant suggested there be a GIT tree for Virtex specific changes. I was told today that we may be able to use Paul's linuxppc tree. I'm going to ask him later today. Probably a newbie question...my understanding is that kernel.org is the preferred repository for PPC-specific code these days, correct? So the a- bove is referring to Xilinx-specific PPC code? From what I can see on LXR and kernel.org neither has any Xilinx-related code... mainline linux-2.6 tree has ml300 support ml300 platform bus support is pending for the powerpc.git tree ml403 support is pending for the powerpc.git tree powerpc.git is periodically pulled into linux-2.6 both are on kernel.org Meh, okay. But then what are the Virtex specific changes that would need to be in Paul's linuxppc tree or anywhere but kernel.org? Thanks, Tom -- /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | \ / | Email to user 'CTZ001' XAgainst HTML | at 'email.mot.com' / \ in e-mail news |
[PATCH 00/10] Updated ML300 ML403 patches
T Ziomek wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Grant Likely wrote: T Ziomek wrote: Grant Likely wrote: John Bonesio wrote: Grant Likely wrote: I'm replying to this email thread because Grant suggested there be a GIT tree for Virtex specific changes. --- snip --- mainline linux-2.6 tree has ml300 support ml300 platform bus support is pending for the powerpc.git tree ml403 support is pending for the powerpc.git tree powerpc.git is periodically pulled into linux-2.6 both are on kernel.org Meh, okay. But then what are the Virtex specific changes that would need to be in Paul's linuxppc tree or anywhere but kernel.org? Basically, I was thinking about a 'development sandbox' that feeds into linux-2.6.git. However, if we can use Paul's powerpc tree, then I don't need to create yet-another-git-tree g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc. P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. (403) 663-0761
Question about SCC Ethernet driver
Hello there, Present MPC8260 SCC Ethernet driver supports one 10M Ethernet port for SCC1 or SCC2. And there is a patch on the net said to support one Ethernet port on any of SCC1 - SCC4. As we hope to use all the SCCs for 10M Ethernet ports, we need to change the driver. Questions: 1. Is it possible to implement 7 Ethernet ports (3 FCCs and 4 SCCs) on a MPC8270? I didn't see any hardware restriction on this. Performance may be an issue? 2. Is there a driver which supports multiple SCC Ethernet ports simultanously? Thanks for any help or information. Regards, David - Yahoo! Photos Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/attachments/20060117/85821680/attachment.htm
Question about SCC Ethernet driver
On Jan 17, 2006, at 8:28 PM, David Tao wrote: Present MPC8260 SCC Ethernet driver supports?one 10M Ethernet port for SCC1 or SCC2. Not any more. Take a look at drivers/net/fs_enet in the 2.6 kernels. I'm sure Pantelis will have more information when he reads this. 1. Is it possible to?implement 7 Ethernet ports (3 FCCs and 4 SCCs) on a MPC8270? I didn't see any hardware restriction on this. Performance may be an issue?? Depends what you want to do with the data in the CPU core and the clock speeds you have chosen. The CPM can handle the data traffic on the wires if you run it over 133 MHz. Thanks. -- Dan
