Wolfgang Grandegger kirjoitti:
On 10/11/2005 05:11 PM Fillod Stephane wrote:
Heikki Lindholm wrote:
[..]
Probably, but there are less than awesome 4xx boards around and I'd
guess they might even be more likely targets than G4 based machines,
for
example. Some tuning might be needed.
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
On 10/11/2005 05:11 PM Fillod Stephane wrote:
Heikki Lindholm wrote:
[..]
Probably, but there are less than awesome 4xx boards around and I'd
guess they might even be more likely targets than G4 based machines,
for
example. Some tuning might be needed.
How
On 10/12/2005 02:51 PM Heikki Lindholm wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger kirjoitti:
On 10/11/2005 05:11 PM Fillod Stephane wrote:
Heikki Lindholm wrote:
[..]
Probably, but there are less than awesome 4xx boards around and I'd
guess they might even be more likely targets than G4 based machines,
for
On 10/12/2005 03:16 PM Fillod Stephane wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
On 10/11/2005 05:11 PM Fillod Stephane wrote:
Heikki Lindholm wrote:
[..]
Probably, but there are less than awesome 4xx boards around and I'd
guess they might even be more likely targets than G4 based machines,
for
Wolfgang Grandegger kirjoitti:
What's the problem with Ebonys? I remember running at least 2.6.9 on
Ebonys (440GP) and Walnuts (405).
We have linux-2.4.14-rc3 running on all AMCC eval boards (see
http://www.denx.de). But the kernel supported by RTAI/Fusion,
linuxppc-2.6.10rc3, does not boot
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
We have linux-2.4.14-rc3 running on all AMCC eval boards (see
http://www.denx.de). But the kernel supported by RTAI/Fusion,
linuxppc-2.6.10rc3, does not boot on Ebony. The main problem is the
missing support for U-Boot but there might be others. And it's simply
not
Dear Philippe,
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Open question: to your opinion, is 2.6 on low-end embedded hw doomed by
design
Something like that.
and why, or do you think that part of the reluctance to move to 2.6 is mostly
explained because 2.4 is just fine and up to the task,
Hi,
today I discovered a bug after having tried to load the Xenomai RTDM skin.
I've attached a patch which should correct the problem.
Sebastian--- xenomai/skins/rtdm/proc.c 2005-10-12 16:58:48.0 +0200
+++ proc.c 2005-10-12 17:00:59.0 +0200
@@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ int __init
Sebastian Smolorz wrote:
Hi,
today I discovered a bug after having tried to load the Xenomai RTDM skin.
I've attached a patch which should correct the problem.
Applied, thanks.
--
Philippe.
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Philippe Gerum wrote:
Sebastian Smolorz wrote:
Hi,
today I discovered a bug after having tried to load the Xenomai RTDM skin.
I've attached a patch which should correct the problem.
... and if we want to have a clean removal of the proc entry at module
unload, this
Sebastian Smolorz wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Philippe Gerum wrote:
Sebastian Smolorz wrote:
Hi,
today I discovered a bug after having tried to load the Xenomai RTDM skin.
I've attached a patch which should correct the problem.
... and if we want to have a clean removal of the proc
11 matches
Mail list logo
