Re: [uClinux-dev] ltib vs uclinux-dist
On Tuesday 01 September 2009 04:52:06 Philippe De Muyter wrote: > > Longer term I think we need to fully merge m68k and m68knommu > > before we push any MMU ColdFire patches to mainline. > > I fully agree with that. > > Who is currently working on the m68k/m68knommu merge ? > Is there a mailing-list, website or other network resource about that ? > The arch trees of m68k and m68knommu have different structures. What will > the structure of the merged tree look like ? I've been looking at this, and while I dont have anything ready yet, it doesnt seem too difficult. m68knommu/configs and platform can be merged directly into m68k; its the files in kernel, lib and mm and especially the m68k Kconfig and Makefile that require some effort. The trivial approach would be to do some thing similar to what was done for the include files: append a suffix of _no to the m68knommu version of the file and _mm to the m68k version and then have a wrapper that uses #ifdef __uClinux__ to select between the two. Of course that doesn't gain us much, except once we then fixup Kconfig and Makefile and have a working build, we can then incrementally merge each of the files in kernel, lib and mm while testing with a working build. -- Steven King -- sfking at fdwdc dot com ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] ltib vs uclinux-dist
Hi Greg, On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 09:19:44PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > Hi Philippe, > > On 09/01/2009 05:59 PM, Philippe De Muyter wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 08:22:37AM +0200, Alexander Stein wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Am Friday 14 August 2009 13:22:59 schrieb Philippe De Muyter: After reading this : http://rtg.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/docs/da-sa-txt/sa-steal.pdf I don't feel anymore it is interesting. >>> >>> I'm the author of this document and as far as I know, Freescale has >>> merged >>> some of the change we made coresponding to my paper. But I don't have any >> >> IIRC, systec's name comes in some files distributed with the M5484lite >> develpoment board. but these are patches against linux-2.6.25 that do not >> apply anymore to the current version of linux kernel, and I see no sign >> of ongoing work to merge them into the current kernel. Kurt Mahan sent >> even some bad news from the freescale team. There is also >> the problem of the m68knommu/m68k merge : all the coldfire ports are >> currently in m68knommu, but the m547x/m548x port is in m68k, leading to >> some code duplication. >>> hint about the current performance as we still use the old code base. >>> Nevertheless I would be interested about current performance values. >> >> I prefer to work with mainstream kernel, so I don't think I'll test >> the freescale port, sorry. >> >> I'd be glad. though, to help pushing or push myself a M548x port (perhaps >> MMU-less) to the current kernel. > > I am certainly happy to push upstream any MMUless m68knommu patches > that support M548x. > > Longer term I think we need to fully merge m68k and m68knommu > before we push any MMU ColdFire patches to mainline. I fully agree with that. Who is currently working on the m68k/m68knommu merge ? Is there a mailing-list, website or other network resource about that ? The arch trees of m68k and m68knommu have different structures. What will the structure of the merged tree look like ? Best regards Philippe ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] ltib vs uclinux-dist
Hi Philippe, On 09/01/2009 05:59 PM, Philippe De Muyter wrote: On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 08:22:37AM +0200, Alexander Stein wrote: Hello, Am Friday 14 August 2009 13:22:59 schrieb Philippe De Muyter: After reading this : http://rtg.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/docs/da-sa-txt/sa-steal.pdf I don't feel anymore it is interesting. I'm the author of this document and as far as I know, Freescale has merged some of the change we made coresponding to my paper. But I don't have any IIRC, systec's name comes in some files distributed with the M5484lite develpoment board. but these are patches against linux-2.6.25 that do not apply anymore to the current version of linux kernel, and I see no sign of ongoing work to merge them into the current kernel. Kurt Mahan sent even some bad news from the freescale team. There is also the problem of the m68knommu/m68k merge : all the coldfire ports are currently in m68knommu, but the m547x/m548x port is in m68k, leading to some code duplication. hint about the current performance as we still use the old code base. Nevertheless I would be interested about current performance values. I prefer to work with mainstream kernel, so I don't think I'll test the freescale port, sorry. I'd be glad. though, to help pushing or push myself a M548x port (perhaps MMU-less) to the current kernel. I am certainly happy to push upstream any MMUless m68knommu patches that support M548x. Longer term I think we need to fully merge m68k and m68knommu before we push any MMU ColdFire patches to mainline. Regards Greg Greg Ungerer -- Principal EngineerEMAIL: g...@snapgear.com SnapGear Group, McAfee PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630 Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] ltib vs uclinux-dist
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 10:21:49AM +0200, Alexander Stein wrote: > BTW: What are the bad news from freescale Kurt Mahan sent? On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:22:09PM -0600, Kurt Mahan wrote: > [...] Those of us on the original team in > Utah were laid off earlier this year. ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] ltib vs uclinux-dist
Hello, Am Tuesday 01 September 2009 09:59:17 schrieb Philippe De Muyter: > IIRC, systec's name comes in some files distributed with the M5484lite > develpoment board. but these are patches against linux-2.6.25 that do not > apply anymore to the current version of linux kernel, and I see no sign > of ongoing work to merge them into the current kernel. Kurt Mahan sent > even some bad news from the freescale team. There is also > the problem of the m68knommu/m68k merge : all the coldfire ports are > currently in m68knommu, but the m547x/m548x port is in m68k, leading to > some code duplication. AFAIK, freescale is using their ltib for distributing the linux kernel for m68k. It seems to me, there is no progress in working together withe the official linux tree. BTW: What are the bad news from freescale Kurt Mahan sent? > I prefer to work with mainstream kernel, so I don't think I'll test > the freescale port, sorry. Thanks for this small feedback. Kind regards Alexander ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] ltib vs uclinux-dist
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 08:22:37AM +0200, Alexander Stein wrote: > Hello, > > Am Friday 14 August 2009 13:22:59 schrieb Philippe De Muyter: > > After reading this : > > http://rtg.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/docs/da-sa-txt/sa-steal.pdf > > > > I don't feel anymore it is interesting. > > I'm the author of this document and as far as I know, Freescale has merged > some of the change we made coresponding to my paper. But I don't have any IIRC, systec's name comes in some files distributed with the M5484lite develpoment board. but these are patches against linux-2.6.25 that do not apply anymore to the current version of linux kernel, and I see no sign of ongoing work to merge them into the current kernel. Kurt Mahan sent even some bad news from the freescale team. There is also the problem of the m68knommu/m68k merge : all the coldfire ports are currently in m68knommu, but the m547x/m548x port is in m68k, leading to some code duplication. > hint about the current performance as we still use the old code base. > Nevertheless I would be interested about current performance values. I prefer to work with mainstream kernel, so I don't think I'll test the freescale port, sorry. I'd be glad. though, to help pushing or push myself a M548x port (perhaps MMU-less) to the current kernel. Best regards Philippe ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
