Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 16:18 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>
>>Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>
>>>This was run on x86, but need further testing before inclusion.
>>
>>Here is a new version, after testing. It appears to run fine. I tested
>>forking in real-time applicatio
Hi,
just a short information about the latest RTDM check-in:
RTDM device profiles are meant to standardise and stabilise the
interface between drivers on one side and applications or other drivers
on the other. Still, they might evolve over the time, potentially
causing incompatibilities.
In ord
Hi all,
are there IPIPE Patches for recent kernels (2.6.19) available for
Freescale's i.MX1/i.MXL and Atmel's AT91RM9200 cpus available.
Thanks a million,
Steven
___
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai
Steven Scholz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> are there IPIPE Patches for recent kernels (2.6.19) available for
> Freescale's i.MX1/i.MXL and Atmel's AT91RM9200 cpus available.
>
> Thanks a million,
Hi,
The IPIPE patches for ARM exist for linux 2.6.14 and 2.6.15. There is an
i.MX21 port for 2.6.14 and an
Gilles,
>> are there IPIPE Patches for recent kernels (2.6.19) available for
>> Freescale's i.MX1/i.MXL and Atmel's AT91RM9200 cpus available.
>
> The IPIPE patches for ARM exist for linux 2.6.14 and 2.6.15. There is an
> i.MX21 port for 2.6.14 and an AT91 port for 2.6.15...
Thanks very much.
W
Steven Scholz wrote:
> Gilles,
>
>
>>>are there IPIPE Patches for recent kernels (2.6.19) available for
>>>Freescale's i.MX1/i.MXL and Atmel's AT91RM9200 cpus available.
>>
>>The IPIPE patches for ARM exist for linux 2.6.14 and 2.6.15. There is an
>>i.MX21 port for 2.6.14 and an AT91 port for 2.6
Gilles,
are there IPIPE Patches for recent kernels (2.6.19) available for
Freescale's i.MX1/i.MXL and Atmel's AT91RM9200 cpus available.
>>> The IPIPE patches for ARM exist for linux 2.6.14 and 2.6.15. There is an
>>> i.MX21 port for 2.6.14 and an AT91 port for 2.6.15...
>>
>> Thanks ver
Steven Scholz wrote:
> Ok. Thanks.
>
> IIUC then 2.6.15 was before the introduction of the generic irq layer.
>
> So would these make it easier to port to a newer kernel? Or harder?
>
> Steven
I have not delved into the details of the 2.6.19 yet, but I would tend
to think that the genirq layer
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 18:04 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Steven Scholz wrote:
> > Ok. Thanks.
> >
> > IIUC then 2.6.15 was before the introduction of the generic irq layer.
> >
> > So would these make it easier to port to a newer kernel? Or harder?
> >
> > Steven
>
> I have not delved i
Philippe,
>> Since Philippe has done the x86 port of Adeos on 2.6.19, he will
>> probably be able to comment more on that.
>>
>
> Genirq definitely makes Adeos ports and maintenance easier. A mid-term
> goal is to rebase all Adeos ports over 2.6.19 and later.
Ok. Are you working on ipipe for ARM
Steven Scholz wrote:
> Philippe,
>
>
>>>Since Philippe has done the x86 port of Adeos on 2.6.19, he will
>>>probably be able to comment more on that.
>>>
>>
>>Genirq definitely makes Adeos ports and maintenance easier. A mid-term
>>goal is to rebase all Adeos ports over 2.6.19 and later.
>
>
>
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 16:24 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in order to test the nocow patch, I wrote the attached test. Despite the
> fact that there is no longer any page fault (I have nucleus debugging
> on, so I would get a message if there was a fault), there is still an
> unwant
12 matches
Mail list logo
