On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:51 PM Robert Nelson wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:47 PM Bruce Chidester
> wrote:
> >
> > Does the 5.x kernel support an interrupt from the PRU while also supporting
> > the bi-directional messaging through rproc?
>
> sorry, i completely missed these commits,
Dumb question by a Debian Newb
I am following this now Debian: Getting Started with the BeagleBone Black
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
| |
Debian: Getting Started with the BeagleBone Black
This is a page about TI's Cortex-A8 based; BeagleBone Black. Availability
Boards: BeagleBone Black at
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:45 PM Robert Nelson wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:41 PM Mark Lazarewicz wrote:
> >
> > Thanks!!
> >
> > Think of it as I'm validating the instructions I think having these is
> > something good. Unfortunately my VM blew up just now.
> >
> > I KNOW your adamant
Thanks Robert
I love these instructions very well done
my goal is to be able to build something stable from scratch not drop binaries
maybe modify kernel add drivers be self sufficient at building everything and
manually updating SD card as opposed to using an upgrade/update on the BB black.
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:53 PM Robert Nelson wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:45 PM Robert Nelson wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:41 PM Mark Lazarewicz wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks!!
> > >
> > > Think of it as I'm validating the instructions I think having these is
> > > something
Does the 5.x kernel support an interrupt from the PRU while also supporting
the bi-directional messaging through rproc?
On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 12:38:08 PM UTC-5 RobertCNelson wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:36 PM Robert Nelson
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:21 PM Bruce
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:54 PM Robert Nelson
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:45 PM Robert Nelson
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:39 PM 'Mark Lazarewicz' via BeagleBoard <
>> beagleboard@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dumb question by a Debian Newb
>>>
>>> I am following
On Fri, 28 May 2021 13:15:20 -0400 (EDT), in
gmane.comp.hardware.beagleboard.user Robert Heller
wrote:
>
>YES. 5.x kernels only support UIO. You need a 4.x TI kernel for RemoteProc.
>
Ouch -- a reversion...
>
>I think the mainline kernels don't have the RemoteProc kernel code. At
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:53 PM Robert Nelson wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:51 PM Robert Nelson
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:47 PM Bruce Chidester
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Does the 5.x kernel support an interrupt from the PRU while also
> > > supporting the
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:39 PM 'Mark Lazarewicz' via BeagleBoard <
beagleboard@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Dumb question by a Debian Newb
>
> I am following this now Debian: Getting Started with the BeagleBone Black
>
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:45 PM Robert Nelson
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:39 PM 'Mark Lazarewicz' via BeagleBoard <
> beagleboard@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Dumb question by a Debian Newb
>>
>> I am following this now Debian: Getting Started with the BeagleBone Black
>>
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:19 PM 'Mark Lazarewicz' via BeagleBoard <
beagleboard@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Thanks Robert
>
> I love these instructions very well done
> my goal is to be able to build something stable from scratch not drop
> binaries maybe modify kernel add drivers be self
Thanks!!
Think of it as I'm validating the instructions I think having these is
something good. Unfortunately my VM blew up just now.
I KNOW your adamant about not supporting VM.
So I'll build a dedicated Debian 8 dev box.
Any hints tips lessons learned what you use be appreciated.
Have a great
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:47 PM Bruce Chidester
wrote:
>
> Does the 5.x kernel support an interrupt from the PRU while also supporting
> the bi-directional messaging through rproc?
sorry, i completely missed these commits, so i have not personally
tested it... It got merged in v5.11.x and has
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:41 PM Mark Lazarewicz wrote:
>
> Thanks!!
>
> Think of it as I'm validating the instructions I think having these is
> something good. Unfortunately my VM blew up just now.
>
> I KNOW your adamant about not supporting VM.
>
> So I'll build a dedicated Debian 8 dev box.
On Fri, 28 May 2021 10:11:46 -0700 (PDT), in
gmane.comp.hardware.beagleboard.user Bruce Chidester
wrote:
>Dennis,
>
>Thanks for your response.
>
>When developing with the UIO architecture, they use the term "interrupt",
>so I assume they meant it somehow, but not willing to die on that hill. I
This is a fully functioning PRU interrupt example that works on my BBB
revision C board. This example demonstrates the PRU interrupting the host
using PRU0 and PRU1.
This example is ready to compile and ready-to-run example that had both the
application code and the PRU code together. Hope
On Fri, 28 May 2021 08:13:05 -0700 (PDT), in
gmane.comp.hardware.beagleboard.user Bruce Chidester
wrote:
>I am using BBB Revision C
>
>Please help me get clarity on my assumptions that I believe I have learned
>so far and tell me where I am incorrect:
Can't confirm for everything,
This is a fully functioning PRU interrupt example that works on my BBB
revision C board. This example demonstrates the PRU interrupting the host
using PRU0 and PRU1.
This example is ready to compile and ready-to-run example that had both the
application code and the PRU code together. Hope
Dennis,
Thanks for your response.
When developing with the UIO architecture, they use the term "interrupt",
so I assume they meant it somehow, but not willing to die on that hill. I
could not get any form of "what they called interrupt" to work the remote
proc architecture. I tried, and
At Fri, 28 May 2021 12:59:20 -0400 beagleboard@googlegroups.com wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 May 2021 08:13:05 -0700 (PDT), in
> gmane.comp.hardware.beagleboard.user Bruce Chidester
> wrote:
>
> >I am using BBB Revision C
> >
> >Please help me get clarity on my assumptions that I believe I have
I'm confused because I thought the plan was Remote Proc going forward. Do
you seem to say it is UIO going forward?
On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 12:15:34 PM UTC-5 hel...@deepsoft.com wrote:
> At Fri, 28 May 2021 12:59:20 -0400 beagl...@googlegroups.com wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, 28 May 2021
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:36 PM Robert Nelson wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:21 PM Bruce Chidester
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm confused because I thought the plan was Remote Proc going forward. Do
> > you seem to say it is UIO going forward?
>
> Mainline has been 'slowly' getting RemoteProc
At Fri, 28 May 2021 10:21:11 -0700 (PDT) beagleboard@googlegroups.com wrote:
>
> I'm confused because I thought the plan was Remote Proc going forward. Do
> you seem to say it is UIO going forward?
Only that the *stock* mainline kernels don't have Remote Proc support. I
guess TI has not
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:21 PM Bruce Chidester
wrote:
>
> I'm confused because I thought the plan was Remote Proc going forward. Do you
> seem to say it is UIO going forward?
Mainline has been 'slowly' getting RemoteProc work done by TI..
Regards,
--
Robert Nelson
https://rcn-ee.com/
--
Where's the "like" button?
Here it is -> LIKE
On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 12:13:59 PM UTC-5 lazarman wrote:
> Very helpful post Bruce thanks. I am just a PRU observer. The resource
> file is discussed in some TI documents it's a way to let Linux understand
> what resources the PRU will need
I am using BBB Revision C
Please help me get clarity on my assumptions that I believe I have learned
so far and tell me where I am incorrect:
1. There are 2 architectures to interact with the PRU's. They are *UIO* and
*RemoteProc*. And they can easily be selected in the /boot/uEnv.txt file.
This is a fully functioning PRU RProc Messaging example that works on my
BBB revision C board.
The thing that makes this solution unique is as of this date of writing, I
could not find a ready to compile and ready to run example that had both
the application code and the PRU code together.
28 matches
Mail list logo
