Re: [Emc-developers] beaglebone status [was: UB integration and 2.6 status]

2013-12-03 Thread Charles Steinkuehler
On 11/4/2013 10:01 AM, EBo wrote: > On Nov 4 2013 8:44 AM, Michael Haberler wrote: >> Am 04.11.2013 um 16:30 schrieb EBo : >> >>> >>> What hard real-time ARM kernels have been found suitable for >>> LinuxCNC? >> >> The only one I found both to have some build support for raspberry >> and beaglebon

Re: [Emc-developers] beaglebone status [was: UB integration and 2.6 status]

2013-11-04 Thread EBo
On Nov 4 2013 8:44 AM, Michael Haberler wrote: > Am 04.11.2013 um 16:30 schrieb EBo : > >> >> What hard real-time ARM kernels have been found suitable for >> LinuxCNC? > > The only one I found both to have some build support for raspberry > and beaglebone, and which works fine is Xenomai; the mail

Re: [Emc-developers] beaglebone status [was: UB integration and 2.6 status]

2013-11-04 Thread EBo
On Nov 4 2013 9:00 AM, Kent A. Reed wrote: > On 11/4/2013 10:30 AM, EBo wrote: >> What hard real-time ARM kernels have been found suitable for >> LinuxCNC? >> Sorry to hear about RT-PREEMPT ARM support... > "Hard real-time", like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. > > Michael named the three

Re: [Emc-developers] beaglebone status [was: UB integration and 2.6 status]

2013-11-04 Thread Kent A. Reed
On 11/4/2013 10:30 AM, EBo wrote: > What hard real-time ARM kernels have been found suitable for LinuxCNC? > Sorry to hear about RT-PREEMPT ARM support... "Hard real-time", like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. Michael named the three "real-time" kernels the unified-build-candidate-3 branc

Re: [Emc-developers] beaglebone status [was: UB integration and 2.6 status]

2013-11-04 Thread Michael Haberler
Am 04.11.2013 um 16:30 schrieb EBo : > > What hard real-time ARM kernels have been found suitable for LinuxCNC? The only one I found both to have some build support for raspberry and beaglebone, and which works fine is Xenomai; the mailinglist should be helpful, and they have rather good do

Re: [Emc-developers] beaglebone status [was: UB integration and 2.6 status]

2013-11-04 Thread EBo
On Nov 4 2013 8:27 AM, Michael Haberler wrote: > Am 04.11.2013 um 16:13 schrieb EBo : > >> On Nov 4 2013 8:03 AM, Michael Haberler wrote: >>> Am 04.11.2013 um 15:46 schrieb EBo : >>> sorry for comming in VERY late in the game, but could someone catch me up on what UB stands for

Re: [Emc-developers] beaglebone status [was: UB integration and 2.6 status]

2013-11-04 Thread Michael Haberler
Am 04.11.2013 um 16:13 schrieb EBo : > On Nov 4 2013 8:03 AM, Michael Haberler wrote: >> Am 04.11.2013 um 15:46 schrieb EBo : >> >>> sorry for comming in VERY late in the game, but could someone catch >>> me >>> up on what UB stands for, >> >> unified-binary . This tree builds and the resultin

[Emc-developers] beaglebone status [was: UB integration and 2.6 status]

2013-11-04 Thread EBo
On Nov 4 2013 8:03 AM, Michael Haberler wrote: > Am 04.11.2013 um 15:46 schrieb EBo : > >> sorry for comming in VERY late in the game, but could someone catch >> me >> up on what UB stands for, > > unified-binary . This tree builds and the resulting binary package > runs unchanged on any RT kernel