Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >>Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> >> >>>>On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 04:53:49PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Is it not time to merge 8xx from linuxppc-2.5 into Linus tree? >>>>> >>>>>I know the 8xx is not fully functional yet but this isn't done >>>>>soon I think it won't happen at all. The 8xx arch can be made to >>>>>depend on BROKEN in Linus tree to make it clear that it isn't >>>>>working properly yet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>I've been the hard-ass about holding back on moving 8xx forward. Once >>>>2.6.9 finally comes out (assuming and hoping that Linus really intends >>>>to do a release and not -rc5), I'll start moving stuff over and make it >>>>depend on BROKEN hopefully in time for 2.6.10-rc1. >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Tom Rini >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Any progress? >>> >>>Jocke >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Linuxppc-embedded mailing list >>>Linuxppc-embedded at ozlabs.org >>>https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I'm currently battling to make 2.6.10-rc1 work the same way it used do. >> >>But something changed in slab management and the kmallocs in request_irq >>called by init_IRQ fails. >> > >hmm, I think I saw something about that in the www log for Linus kernel. It is >offline so >I can't check now. > >The www I/F for both Linus tree(http://linux.bitkeeper.com/) and the ppc >tree(http://ppc.bitkeeper.com/) >are offline alot. Anyone who knows whats going on? > > Jocke > > > Found the bug.
IRQ code is now common for all arches, but ppc used a special irq_kmalloc routine, since request irq was called very early. The generic code just calls straight kmalloc, which obviously craps out when too early. Lets see what can I do to fix it... BTW I'm curious if any embedded PPC actually works on 2.6.10... Regards Pantelis
