On Monday, February 24, 2014 2:54 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix 
<[email protected]> wrote:
 
On 02/24/2014 01:54 PM, Huub Van Niekerk wrote:
> On Thursday, February 20, 2014 3:44 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 02/20/2014 03:35 PM, Huub Van Niekerk wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > On Thursday, February 20, 2014 2:39 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix
>  > <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>  > On 02/20/2014 02:24 PM, Huub Van Niekerk wrote:
>  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  > On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:32 PM, Paul <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
>  > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
>  >  > wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  > On Wednesday 19 February 2014, Huub Van Niekerk wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  >> The patch you created for the armhf architecture, will it work
>  >  >> with older Linux kernels such as 2.6.x and 3.2.x as well ?
>  >  >
>  >  >> Just to clarify, the patch that I submitted is for the Broadcom
>  >  >> BCM2835 SoC (an ARMv6K core) - armhf covers a variety of ARM
>  >  >> flavours.
>  >  >
>  >  >> If you can find a 2.6.xx kernel that has support for the BCM2835
>  >  >> AND includes the DWC-OTG drivers, there is no reason why the
>  >  >> Raspberry Pi patch couldn't be adapted.
>  >  >
>  >  >> The 3.2.x kernel reportedly had a few serious bugs - I don't know
>  >  >> if these bugs impacted on the BCM2835 or the operation of Xenomai.
>  >  >> If you are looking at using a 3.x.x series kernel, it would be
>  >  >> advisable to get the latest stable release that has a corresponding
>  >  >> Xenomai patch.
>  >  >
>  >  > I just tried to build xenomai-2.6.2 on armhf (after applying your
>  >  > patch) using debuild -us -uc. This fails with an error I had before:
>  >  > fatal error at line 1350: dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -B -us -uc
>  >  > failed. Does this mean that your patch is not suitable for v. 2.6.2
>  >
>  >  > ?
>  >
>  >  >Please do not use 2.6.2, it was so buggy that 2.6.2.1 was released just
>  >  >a little time after. And in fact, there is no reason not to use 2.6.3,
>  >  >it is ABI compatible with 2.6.2 and 2.6.2.1.
>  >
>  > OK. The reason I tried 2.6.2 is that this version has a patch for kernel
>  > 3.2, which 2.6.3 has not, as far as I can see.
>
>  >Bad reason:
>  >- the patch for 3.2 is broken, as has been said several times on this
>  >mailing list, including in the very first answer you received in this
>  >same discussion thread;
>  >- the latest version of Xenomai should be compatible with all the past
>  >patches (though it only has been well tested with the latest patch it
>  >provides).
>
> Out of curiosity: has this patch actually been tested on an armhf board
> prior to releasing to me or stock ?

>I do not known what patch you are talking about. But the I-pipe patches 
>are tested on omap3 and omap4, with armhf compilers before each release.

>Now, if you are talking about the generation of Debian packages, 2.6.2 
>was released with a broken debian/rules, which was the main reason for 
>releasing 2.6.2.1. Now, I have to admit that I do not generate debian 
>packages, I let others do it.

>I consider that validating Xenomai with armhf compiler proves that it 
>can work.

Ok, thank you for the answer. By further testing I found my problem is 
somewhere in the kernel and so far has nothing to do with Xenomai.
_______________________________________________
Xenomai mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai

Reply via email to