Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Adeos support for 2.6.18 merged PowerPC architecture.
Benjamin Zores wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:11:23 +0100 Wolfgang Grandegger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Benjamin Zores wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:21:25 +0100 Wolfgang Grandegger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I hack a bit my patch to make it compile and the kernel already booted. Though it hangs when loading the SATA driver. I have no idea why atm. Problems with IRQs? Probably, as when unplugging the SATA drive, the boot goes further but then hang at USB detection (both are handlign IRQs a lot i guess). Would be interesting if someone could test on other board than just mine. As I pointed out in my previous mail, the IRQ handling is not yet correct for powerpc. Try to correct his first. The 2.6.19 having been released out, and working much better on my card than the vanilla 2.6.18 used to be, I'm now more kind to adapt my patch to this latest kernel. OK. However the IRQ handling API seem to have changed a lot and i was wondering if some work on porting Adeos (x86/ppc, not yet powerpc of course) patches already have been started by someone here ? I have now a preliminary patch for adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-ppc-1.5-00. The porting was rather straight-forward, as the ppc tree does not use the new genirq interface, in contrast to the powerpc tree (that's what you have realized as well). (i.e. something i can work from to adapt my new patch) Therefore the port of the powerpc tree should be based on Philippe's new adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-i386-1.6-00. Unfortunately, I still do not have a board by hand supported by the powerpc tree. Wolfgang. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Adeos support for 2.6.18 merged PowerPC architecture.
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:17:07 +0100 Wolfgang Grandegger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have now a preliminary patch for adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-ppc-1.5-00. The porting was rather straight-forward, as the ppc tree does not use the new genirq interface, in contrast to the powerpc tree (that's what you have realized as well). Well, i guess the old ppc arch is bound to die sooner or later. New developments should always be done against powerpc arch imho. Therefore the port of the powerpc tree should be based on Philippe's new adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-i386-1.6-00. Unfortunately, I still do not have a board by hand supported by the powerpc tree. I haven't had much much time investigating the problem till now. But from what i've seen from Philippe's splitted patches, many of them that were supposed to be generic (i.e. don't have i386 in their name) still have references to x86 changes. Is it a normal behavior ? (about dev board, no one's developing on lite5200 or sth like that ?) Ben ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Adeos support for 2.6.18 merged PowerPC architecture.
Benjamin Zores wrote: On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:17:07 +0100 Wolfgang Grandegger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have now a preliminary patch for adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-ppc-1.5-00. The porting was rather straight-forward, as the ppc tree does not use the new genirq interface, in contrast to the powerpc tree (that's what you have realized as well). Well, i guess the old ppc arch is bound to die sooner or later. New developments should always be done against powerpc arch imho. Well, the powerpc tree is still highly experimental and only a few embedded boards are already supported. I guess it will take a long time before the ppc tree finally gets buried, especially because porting is not really trivial (due to OF, IRQ layer, etc.), Therefore the port of the powerpc tree should be based on Philippe's new adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-i386-1.6-00. Unfortunately, I still do not have a board by hand supported by the powerpc tree. I haven't had much much time investigating the problem till now. But from what i've seen from Philippe's splitted patches, many of them that were supposed to be generic (i.e. don't have i386 in their name) still have references to x86 changes. Is it a normal behavior ? Unfortunately, generic applies only to the Linux part. I realized, that the new IPIPE support for the genirqs requires even more arch-specific modifications than the old interface :-( on PowerPC. (about dev board, no one's developing on lite5200 or sth like that ?) Have you ever worked with that board under 2.6? It is not even well supported by the old ppc tree and you need patches, which are available somewhere but still require extra tweaking. I have such a board on my table and if I'm lucky, I will get U-Boot with OF support up and booting Linux PowerPC 2.6.19 ... but I need plenty of luck. Wolfgang. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Adeos support for 2.6.18 merged PowerPC architecture.
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:09:38 +0100 Wolfgang Grandegger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, generic applies only to the Linux part. I realized, that the new IPIPE support for the genirqs requires even more arch-specific modifications than the old interface :-( on PowerPC. That's pretty bad news :-( Have you ever worked with that board under 2.6? It is not even well supported by the old ppc tree and you need patches, which are available somewhere but still require extra tweaking. I have such a board on my table and if I'm lucky, I will get U-Boot with OF support up and booting Linux PowerPC 2.6.19 ... but I need plenty of luck. Nope, but i've seen recent commits for better support on kernel git for upcoming 2.6.20. Btw, Freescale have GIT trees for UBoot with support for many of their CPUs (and support for OF as well). See http://opensource.freescale.com/ Ben ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Adeos support for 2.6.18 merged PowerPC architecture.
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: Benjamin Zores wrote: On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:17:07 +0100 Wolfgang Grandegger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have now a preliminary patch for adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-ppc-1.5-00. The porting was rather straight-forward, as the ppc tree does not use the new genirq interface, in contrast to the powerpc tree (that's what you have realized as well). Well, i guess the old ppc arch is bound to die sooner or later. New developments should always be done against powerpc arch imho. Well, the powerpc tree is still highly experimental and only a few embedded boards are already supported. I guess it will take a long time before the ppc tree finally gets buried, especially because porting is not really trivial (due to OF, IRQ layer, etc.), Therefore the port of the powerpc tree should be based on Philippe's new adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-i386-1.6-00. Unfortunately, I still do not have a board by hand supported by the powerpc tree. I haven't had much much time investigating the problem till now. But from what i've seen from Philippe's splitted patches, many of them that were supposed to be generic (i.e. don't have i386 in their name) still have references to x86 changes. Is it a normal behavior ? Unfortunately, generic applies only to the Linux part. I realized, that the new IPIPE support for the genirqs requires even more arch-specific modifications than the old interface :-( on PowerPC. How comes? I haven't found time to analyse this for the latest x86 patch, but there it should be more generic than before. Do you think this is a genirq issue or an I-pipe problem? Jan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
[Xenomai-core] Re: libnative versioning
Philippe Gerum wrote: On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 16:39 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: Hi, we just had some fun here with incompatible native libraries. A program was built against some 2.2 release and was then started on a target with 2.3 libs installed. The result: undefined symbol rt_mutex_lock. The reason: this function was renamed to rt_mutex_acquire in trunk to resolve a naming conflict in recent kernels. So we now have incompatible libraries and should either increment some version number of libnative or export the necessary aliases for lock/unlock. What is preferred? The Xenomai ABI has been kept compatible between versions, so we want to provide the proper aliases for user-space; the conflict is kernel-space only, and there is no reason to ask user-space apps to conform to some obscure change that took place within the vanilla kernel API. Actually, I already wrappers in include/native/mutex.h, but unfortunately as macros, so dynamic binding could not work. I'm fixing this. Thanks. And this fixes the fix (/wrt C++ users). Jan Index: include/native/mutex.h === --- include/native/mutex.h (revision 1920) +++ include/native/mutex.h (working copy) @@ -121,10 +121,6 @@ int rt_mutex_release(RT_MUTEX *mutex); int rt_mutex_inquire(RT_MUTEX *mutex, RT_MUTEX_INFO *info); -#ifdef __cplusplus -} -#endif - #ifdef __KERNEL__ #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,18) static inline int __deprecated_call__ rt_mutex_lock(RT_MUTEX *mutex, RTIME timeout) @@ -146,4 +142,8 @@ int rt_mutex_unlock(RT_MUTEX *mutex); #endif /* __KERNEL__ */ +#ifdef __cplusplus +} +#endif + #endif /* !_XENO_MUTEX_H */ ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Adeos support for 2.6.18 merged PowerPC architecture.
Benjamin Zores wrote: On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:09:38 +0100 Wolfgang Grandegger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, generic applies only to the Linux part. I realized, that the new IPIPE support for the genirqs requires even more arch-specific modifications than the old interface :-( on PowerPC. That's pretty bad news :-( Well, but that part is not really tricky. Have you ever worked with that board under 2.6? It is not even well supported by the old ppc tree and you need patches, which are available somewhere but still require extra tweaking. I have such a board on my table and if I'm lucky, I will get U-Boot with OF support up and booting Linux PowerPC 2.6.19 ... but I need plenty of luck. Nope, but i've seen recent commits for better support on kernel git for upcoming 2.6.20. Yes, but till now it was not working out of the box. Btw, Freescale have GIT trees for UBoot with support for many of their CPUs (and support for OF as well). See http://opensource.freescale.com/ OK, Thanks. Wolfgang. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
