Philippe Gerum wrote: > On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 18:37 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> Philippe Gerum wrote: >>> On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 10:36 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>>> Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 23:46 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 14:19 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, there is an unreleased work-in-progress patch for x86 over -rc6 >>>>>>> by Philippe. I recently had the chance to test it and hack a bit on the >>>>>>> SMP IO-APIC part. It seems to work fine under UP, but SMP had some >>>>>>> issues that are identified, but still need to be addressed - thanks to >>>>>>> genirq, now in a widely arch-independent way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Philippe, I know you are very busy, but shouldn't we make a pre-release >>>>>>> available already, also to discuss further how to deal best with genirq >>>>>>> on other platforms beyond x86? >>>>>> Actually, the draft patch I sent you did not boot on my SMP box today, >>>>>> so qemu seems to have been a bit too friendly. Knowing that, issuing a >>>>>> half-baked patch would have made no sense, so I finally refrained from >>>>>> doing that. Since I'm now basically in love with the genirq layer (at >>>>>> least for x86) compared to the utter mess that we had to endure >>>>>> previously, I've decided to tackle the issue completely, and rewrite the >>>>>> I-pipe interrupt flow in order to leverage it. Will post something asap. >>>>>> >>>>> Ok, here we are. I've just merged 2.6.19-ipipe-1.6-00. It has been >>>>> tested on a low-end classic Pentium 90Mhz, a dusty two-way Celeron >>>>> 750Mhz, and on a terrible Celeron 1GHz oldish laptop. Looks ok so far, >>>>> and even passed the horrid "dohell" test on the SMP box, just smiling. >>>>> However, I don't have the required hw at hand to check if our friend the >>>>> MSI support is not killing us once more. This said, the MSI support in >>>>> 2.6.19 also conforms to the genirq specs, so there's hope. >>>>> >>>>> The patch is available from the Adeos download area, and I've also >>>>> committed it to the SVN trunk/. >>>>> >>>>> Feedback welcome, >>>>> >>>>> PS: I have the corresponding quilt-managed patches available upon >>>>> request, to the people who want to use this work as a reference for >>>>> porting to other archs. >>>> You mean that you have separate patches for the common and arch >>>> dependent part. >>> Mostly, yes. The patches are split by function, but this usually >>> correlates with the noarch / arch-specific break down view too. >>> >>>> That would be nice. I'm interested! >>> http://download.gna.org/adeos/patches/v2.6/i386/split/ >>> >>>> As a consequence we >>>> could provide separated patches in general and prepare-kernel.sh applies >>>> them in sequence. Just an idea for the future. >>>> >>> Problem is that we would have to store a set of patches for each Adeos >>> version/arch combo, instead of a single one. What advantage do you see >>> in breaking the Adeos patches down for prepare-kernel.sh? >> Maintenance issues for the noarch part, e.g., if you fix a bug in the >> common part or add new features it's available for all arch. > > I think this should be easier once we have moved to git, pulling commits > is made simple (yeah, I'm late on this too...)
Ah, I just read the keyword: git! ;) Rough idea from my side on a potential organisation of the git trees: o A generic I-pipe core tree that primarily targets git head (i.e. 2.6) o One branch for git head, pulls both from Linus' tree and the I-pipe core o One tree for each major 2.6 version in maintenance mode, pulls from related stable branch and I-pipe core (when applicable) o Only if required: a generic I-pipe core tree for 2.4 o One tree for 2.4 head to maintain x86 o One tree for 2.4 ELDK to maintain PPC Quite a lot trees... Do you this this may work? Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
