Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> 2007/4/10, Gilles Chanteperdrix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>We port the adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-arm-1.6-05.patch for AT91SAM9261.
>>>
>>>This patch must be applied on vanilla 2.6.19 with at91 patch (
>>>http://maxim.org.za/AT91RM9200/2.6/2.6.19-at91.patch.gz ) applied for
>>>supporting AT91SAM9261.
>>>So first get vanilla kernel, then apply at91 patch then apply our
>>>patch instead of adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-arm-1.6-05.patch.
>>>
>>>For now it works with Xenomai on AT91SAM9261-EK, if someone is
>>>intersting we can send the benchmark result.
>>>As AT91SAM926x are pretty similar of AT91RM9200, there is a some
>>>duplicate code and some common code.
>>>In the future it could be also work on all AT91SAM926x, we can test
>>>it. But before going ahead we would like some comment on this patch.
>>>
>>>The better would be working on 2.6.20 which already have support for
>>>AT91SAM926x, but we didn't see any arm patch on this kernel nor any
>>>file modified on git.
>>>
>>>Hope this patch will be usefull.
>>
>>It looks good. I will try and port the I-pipe patch for ARM to Linux
>>2.6.20. In the meantime, could you separate the AT91SAM9261 specific
>>code and the changes (if any) made to the rest of the I-pipe from the
>>rest of the I-pipe ? This would ease distribution and maintenance.
>
>
> OK I made a diff between our patch and
> adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-arm-1.6-05.patch. I had to reworked our patch for
> removing fake difference.
> As you will see there is not many difference between the 2 patchs and
> we don't modify the rest of I-pipe.
> There is also difference due to the fact that we made our patch on a
> kernel patched with at91 whereas adeos patch was made on vanilla
> kernel.
>
> As this diff file isn't really readeable, I can say that the main file
> we modified are:
> * arch/arm/mach-at91rm9200/Kconfig
> -> here we add support for AT91SAM9261
>
> * arch/arm/mach-at91rm9200/at91sam9261.c
> -> here we add support for TCB0 and modify interrupt priority in the
> same way of AT91RM9200
>
> * arch/arm/mach-at91rm9200/at91sam926x_time.c
> -> and here we add the same code that was in
> arch/arm/mach-at91rm9200/at91rm9200_time.c. As it is exactly the same
> code added as we use the same peripheral, maybe we can add a common
> file ( an at91_ipipe_time.c), instead of having duplicated code.
Sorry, I did not make myself clear, I would like a difference between
the trees, not between the diffs. In other words, the modifications you
made.
--
Gilles Chanteperdrix
_______________________________________________
Adeos-main mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/adeos-main
