Hi Philippe,
Philippe De Muyter wrote:
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 10:20:36PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
The arch trees of m68k and m68knommu have different structures. What will
the structure of the merged tree look like ?
I haven't given that too much thought yet. Most likely it would
follow th
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 10:20:36PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
>> The arch trees of m68k and m68knommu have different structures. What will
>> the structure of the merged tree look like ?
>
> I haven't given that too much thought yet. Most likely it would
> follow the m68k model, since it is essent
Hi Steven,
On 09/02/2009 04:34 AM, Steven King wrote:
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 m
Hi Philippe,
On 09/01/2009 09:52 PM, Philippe De Muyter wrote:
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 2
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-li
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:
Afte
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 f
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.
___
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
>
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 aut
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
LTIB BSP releases for the 547x/548x use the MMU.
If you look at the init code you'll see it initialized and then there is
MMU handling code to handle it. This code is also mostly common with
the 5445x.
There is an engineering team in China now handling linux/uclinux
development for coldfire
Hi Philippe,
Philippe De Muyter wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 08:37:07AM +0100, Stuart Hughes wrote:
Hi Philippe,
I maintain LTIB (the tool). Generally speaking for MMUless platforms I'd
recommend using uClinux-dist. However if LTIB has the exact platform
you're interested in that may be
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:40:29AM +0100, Stuart Hughes wrote:
> Philippe De Muyter wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 08:37:07AM +0100, Stuart Hughes wrote:
>>> Hi Philippe,
>>>
>>> I maintain LTIB (the tool). Generally speaking for MMUless platforms I'd
>>> recommend using uClinux-dist. However
Philippe De Muyter wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 08:37:07AM +0100, Stuart Hughes wrote:
Hi Philippe,
I maintain LTIB (the tool). Generally speaking for MMUless platforms I'd
recommend using uClinux-dist. However if LTIB has the exact platform
you're interested in that may be helpful as it
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 08:37:07AM +0100, Stuart Hughes wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> I maintain LTIB (the tool). Generally speaking for MMUless platforms I'd
> recommend using uClinux-dist. However if LTIB has the exact platform
> you're interested in that may be helpful as it will be known to wor
Hi Philippe,
I maintain LTIB (the tool). Generally speaking for MMUless platforms
I'd recommend using uClinux-dist. However if LTIB has the exact
platform you're interested in that may be helpful as it will be known to
work out of the box. The compiler used in LTIB should work with
uClinux
Philippe,
These are all good questions. Here at the office we make use of both
Freescale's LTIB release and the uClinux-dist release. When Freescale
releases a new part and matching evaluation board they will release it
with a tool chain (from CodeSourcery) and an LTIB that is aware of the
new
Hi all,
I need to install (uc)linux on a in-house designed MCF5484-based board.
I feel comfortable with uc-linux dist, having used it before on m68340
and mcf5272 based boards.
I now saw that the MCF5484 development board from freescale comes with
ltib.
- What's the relation between uclinux-dist
19 matches
Mail list logo
