Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > 2007/4/11, Gilles Chanteperdrix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 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. > > Well this differences show the modification we made, but I agree it is > not really readable. > > Between which tree do you want the diffs ? > Vanilla kernel +adeos patch and at91 patched kernel + our patch ? > With this you'll have a lot of at91 patch in it. > > Maybe we can try to make a diff between > at91 patched kernel +adeos patch and at91 patched kernel + our patch ? > But with this solution we have to made some modification on adeos > patch for applying it on at91 patched kernel. > > Last solution is to attach the file modified.
Already tried interdiff between to original ipipe patch and your version? Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Adeos-main mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/adeos-main
