Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 05:48:08PM +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote: You are welcome. Out of curiosity, what was unclear exactly? We just had a nice discussion regarding powerpc support in ipipe/mainline/denx. Now it is clear to me, what your plan is! Thanks for your efforts, Richard ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 11:57 +0100, Richard Cochran wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:07:57AM +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote: With ipipe-2.6.33 solely tracking mainline, only the few temporary trees with not-mainlined-yet features/support will pull from the DENX tree to get them. Okay, its now clear to me. Thanks for the explanation. You are welcome. Out of curiosity, what was unclear exactly? Richard ___ Adeos-main mailing list adeos-m...@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/adeos-main -- Philippe. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 08:53 +0100, Richard Cochran wrote: Philippe, After updating my ipipe git repo, I notice that you have done something new with ipipe-2.6.32-powerpc, back in January. Previously, the Denx bits appeared as squashed commits. Now, the Denx commits appear individually. I am curious, what's up with that? I wanted to rebase on the official DENX stable branch, since my work was previously based on a dev snapshot, and I did this by fetching+merging that branch into mine, based on v2.6.32.2; in that case, the changes appear as individual commits I guess. I did not want to mess with jumbo patches and the error-prone manual operations they entail. With ipipe-2.6.33 solely tracking mainline, only the few temporary trees with not-mainlined-yet features/support will pull from the DENX tree to get them. Thanks, Richard ___ Adeos-main mailing list adeos-m...@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/adeos-main -- Philippe. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:07:57AM +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote: With ipipe-2.6.33 solely tracking mainline, only the few temporary trees with not-mainlined-yet features/support will pull from the DENX tree to get them. Okay, its now clear to me. Thanks for the explanation. Richard ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
Philippe, After updating my ipipe git repo, I notice that you have done something new with ipipe-2.6.32-powerpc, back in January. Previously, the Denx bits appeared as squashed commits. Now, the Denx commits appear individually. I am curious, what's up with that? Thanks, Richard ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 23:51 +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: Dear Philippe, in message 1263765606.2428.908.ca...@redshift.xenomai.org you wrote: What we may be aiming at, if workable, is something like: ipipe-*-mainline ipipe-*-amcc ipipe-*-512x This sounds fine to me. I guess we don't even need a 'ipipe-*-amcc' branch - the only things that should be in our tree but not in mainline are the Synopsis USB and S-ATA drivers (which are in such a state that they have no chance of being accepted for mainline), and these additional features are probably not of relevance for use with Xenomai. The 8250 serial support put aside, I don't think we have any hunks in non-core Linux code, so we likely don't need this branch indeed. ACK for 'ipipe-*-512x', but this is a work-in-progress tree, with the clear intention to push this stuff into mainline ASAP. Ok. Maybe one for the PA6T as well, if we want to keep supporting the old A2 board rev. I'm unsure right now, since B0 is fine in mainline already. Are there any significant differences between A2 and Bx as far as Xenomai in concerned? I mean, would a mainline patch (for Bx) be missing anything so it doesn't run on A2? Basically the work-arounds to fix the A2 errata; some of them have to be adapted to run in any context from the pipeline code (some bits in the process switching and tlbie handling code come to mind). This said, this could be solved by a supplemental patch moving those work-arounds on top of a mainline-based support. A mainline pipeline branch for everything that directly works over mainline, and platform-specific branches for those that do not. Those special branches would then disappear as soon as mainline is fine for the platforms they host as well. I like this approach :-) Ok, thanks. ETA is in the 2.6.33 time frame. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- Philippe. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 12:51 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 11:00:06PM +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote: As I explained earlier in my reply to Lennart, the DENX tree is not a pre-requisite for having the pipeline run on each and every hw platform, but this is still the case for some, because they are not stable/complete/good enough in mainline yet. The reason to stick with it stems from this fact. What has to be reassessed, is the number of platforms Xenomai supports that still need DENX bits today; if only a few of them remain in this category, then it's probably sound to start maintaining the pipeline support for them in a separate tree, rebasing I-pipe mainline over Linux mainline for ppc as well. I have no issue with that. Sounds great to me. What we may be aiming at, if workable, is something like: ipipe-*-mainline ipipe-*-amcc ipipe-*-512x Maybe one for the PA6T as well, if we want to keep supporting the old A2 board rev. I'm unsure right now, since B0 is fine in mainline already. A mainline pipeline branch for everything that directly works over mainline, and platform-specific branches for those that do not. Those special branches would then disappear as soon as mainline is fine for the platforms they host as well. I also noticed on Friday that applying both x86 and powerpc ipipe patches to one kernel tree is a bit problematic. Obviously both include the noarch section, but dealing with that is simple. The only actual problem that had to be solved is that both xenomai architectures try to include arch/archname/xenomai/Kconfig which conflict with each other. Merging the x86 and powerpc Kconfig bits together in one file isn't hard and allows both to work with a single included file. The reason I want this is that I very much intend to have a single 2.6.32 kernel source build with the same patches on both our x86 based embedded systems and our powerpc based embedded systems. Is there any interest in getting such cleanup done to make the code just apply all together? If so I will try to finish adding the other architectures together too. If you can make this work cleanly, while keeping the ability to separate arch-dep sections in different patches, I'm a taker. Even if having separate per-architecture patches is better for decoupling their release cycle (issuing a jumbo patch each time minor updates appear only in a single arch-dep section is not suitable), we could also provide an integrated patch by combining all per-arch bits and a single no-arch section. -- Philippe. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 08:53 +0100, Richard Cochran wrote: On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 05:18:02PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: Well I have not been able to find the magic invocation that lets me take the DENX tree (which I have had around for a long time just to look at occationally, whenever I was trying to get an ipipe patch to apply), apply the ipipe patch, revert the DENX changes to get back to a release kernel, and generate a diff of the ipipe changes. It has never worked when I tried. Lennart, It is not so hard (using git) to remove the Denx patches from the ipipe tree. I did this myself for 2.6.30 in about a half an hour. If you don't know how to use git, then you would have to consider the additional time you need to get to understand it. (For me, it was only a year or so ;) In the ipipe tree, the Denx commits have been squashed together into one or two really large commits. So, you can just cherry pick the adeos commits into a new branch, with a few minor fixups. Philippe, I actually agree with Lennart that the Denx stuff is an annoyance. When considering my no-denx branch that I made, I could not see any significant Denx change that adeos builds upon. There were a few Denx fixes for one specific board that were close to the adeos changes, but these were only a few, and easy to fix. So, I could not understand why Denx is a prerequisite for adeos. As I explained earlier in my reply to Lennart, the DENX tree is not a pre-requisite for having the pipeline run on each and every hw platform, but this is still the case for some, because they are not stable/complete/good enough in mainline yet. The reason to stick with it stems from this fact. What has to be reassessed, is the number of platforms Xenomai supports that still need DENX bits today; if only a few of them remain in this category, then it's probably sound to start maintaining the pipeline support for them in a separate tree, rebasing I-pipe mainline over Linux mainline for ppc as well. I have no issue with that. I understand that Denx sponsored the original PowerPC Xenomai port. Is the reason that ipipe is based on Denx simply to honor that fact? If so, I would not think it a bad reason at all. No, it's not, because if I had chosen to base the pipeline code for ppc over mainline at that time, I would have maintained a DENX-based version for the very reason you mentioned, until it proves useless. However, I would still prefer the following ordering for the changes: 1. stable linux (2.6.xx.y) 2. adeos arch indepedendent 3. adeos powerpc 4. denx 5. adeos for denx (minimal changes, I expect) What we may be aiming at, if workable, is something like: ipipe-*-mainline ipipe-*-amcc ipipe-*-512x Maybe one for the PA6T as well, if we want to keep supporting the old A2 board rev. I'm unsure right now, since B0 is fine in mainline already. A mainline pipeline branch for everything that directly works over mainline, and platform-specific branches for those that do not. Those special branches would then disappear as soon as mainline is fine for the platforms they host as well. Richard ___ Adeos-main mailing list adeos-m...@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/adeos-main -- Philippe. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
Dear Philippe, in message 1263765606.2428.908.ca...@redshift.xenomai.org you wrote: What we may be aiming at, if workable, is something like: ipipe-*-mainline ipipe-*-amcc ipipe-*-512x This sounds fine to me. I guess we don't even need a 'ipipe-*-amcc' branch - the only things that should be in our tree but not in mainline are the Synopsis USB and S-ATA drivers (which are in such a state that they have no chance of being accepted for mainline), and these additional features are probably not of relevance for use with Xenomai. ACK for 'ipipe-*-512x', but this is a work-in-progress tree, with the clear intention to push this stuff into mainline ASAP. Maybe one for the PA6T as well, if we want to keep supporting the old A2 board rev. I'm unsure right now, since B0 is fine in mainline already. Are there any significant differences between A2 and Bx as far as Xenomai in concerned? I mean, would a mainline patch (for Bx) be missing anything so it doesn't run on A2? A mainline pipeline branch for everything that directly works over mainline, and platform-specific branches for those that do not. Those special branches would then disappear as soon as mainline is fine for the platforms they host as well. I like this approach :-) Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 17:18 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 08:23:35PM +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote: This is likely because your knowledge overwhelms mine. I'm only a moron, so git diff with a proper commit number, or even patch -R does work for me. Simple things always work for simple idiots, it's a fact of life. Well I have not been able to find the magic invocation that lets me take the DENX tree (which I have had around for a long time just to look at occationally, whenever I was trying to get an ipipe patch to apply), apply the ipipe patch, revert the DENX changes to get back to a release kernel, and generate a diff of the ipipe changes. It has never worked when I tried. To get a complete pipeline, you need the -noarch side, and the -powerpc side. ipipe-2.6.32-powerpc is based on ipipe-2.6.32-noarch, which is based on v2.6.32 mainline. From the official I-pipe tree located there: git://git.denx.de/ipipe-2.6.git $ git log --abbrev-commit --oneline -4 ipipe-2.6.32-powerpc gives: 704529e powerpc/ipipe: arch-dependent bits for 2.6.32.2 2cc8efe Merge branch 'DENX-v2.6.32' into ipipe-2.6.32-newppc 01765d4 powerpc: merge DENX-v2.6.32 bits ea15238 powerpc: merge 2.6.32.2 -stable So, what you want is a merge between 2.6.32.2 mainline and the powerpc bits, skipping the DENX bits: $ git checkout -b ipipe-mainline ipipe-2.6.32-noarch $ git cherry-pick ea15238 $ git cherry-pick 704529e This will lead to two trivial rejects, one is in the ppc64 section you do not care about, the other in process.c, which is a hunk related to supporting the PA6T 64bit architecture as well, which you don't care about, either. # unmerged: arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c # unmerged: arch/powerpc/mm/hash_native_64.c Basically, it's a 2 minutes work. Granted, it applies to 2.6.32.2 only, and more conflicts could pop up with different revisions of this work; but this has never been a massive pain to move from a DENX tree to mainline, and I did it quite a few times. If you do think that the situation for x86 must be applicable to any other architecture, then I really can't do anything for you, except perhaps suggest to get your feet a bit more wet with those, and probably do some reality check against your knowledge of the embedded world. Actually yes I think the x86 situation should be applicable to other architectures. I am currently running embedded x86, powerpc and coldfire, all using release kernels. That to me is a highly desirable goal. The coldfire was painful a year ago, but it sure has come a long way in that year. x86 does not qualify for this discussion; with a x86-based system, even if the kernel at hand does not support the very latest fancy device you have on board, your kernel will likely still boot and run properly. On the other hand, you would not even try booting your mpc8360 over a kernel built for 44x. But given you want to support both, if either of both happen to be in a poor state in your reference tree, things start hitting the crapper. The DENX tree saved my day so far, because it allowed me to work on all powerpc platforms from a single code base. Aside of this, I don't intend to get dragged into such a discussion, it's a pure loss of time. So please, take what I can offer, or just blame me for being an idiot to have a different perspective from yours, but don't waste my bandwidth. I need it direly to be able to issue patches you can use, even at the expense of cloning a git tree. Well debian used to try and package xenomai. They are still on 2.4.8. I suspect they may have given up on it given that they only use release kernels, and many of the patches are useless in that case. What's the point of trying then. The Blackfin uClinux distro was still shipping 2.4.7 in their latest 2009R1 release, albeit they merged the Blackfin-specific bits from the pipeline into their official kernel tree, many moons ago. Incidentally, I'm maintaining those bits for their development kernel directly feeding mainline, so I don't think your reasoning should be generalized. This said, if you have first hand information from the Debian team regarding this, maybe you should tell them to drop us a note; we would be happy to help. However, if you do think that some good reason might exist to work with DENX material when it comes to powerpc over embedded platforms, but want to help in issuing a mainline-based version of the pipeline patches regularly, then I would agree to ease your task. Well I do work with embedded powerpc, and so far have had no use for the DENX tree. I have no idea what powerpc systems need stuff from the DENX tree to work, but certainly not the mpc8360 I deal with. I understand your point from your perspective. But maintaining our code base for mpc8360 only is not enough for us. The reason why the powerpc patches are DENX-based is simply that this tree worked for me over time, for various platforms
Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
Hi Philippe, Philippe Gerum wrote: [snip] On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 17:18 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: You did port the pipeline to 2.6.32/ppc32 for running on mpc8360, which fits your needs. But the pipeline patch has to be upgraded for ppc64 as well. Even for ppc32, a patch is normally validated for a set of 4xx, 512x, 52xx, 82xx, 85xx, and 86xx platforms, by the Xenomai standards: http://www.xenomai.org/index.php/Embedded_Device_Support#Supported_Evaluation_Boards_3 Btw, your patch never made it to the list, since this is a subscriber-only list, and last time I checked, you were not subscribed. Or maybe you posted from a different mail address, but I did not see your mail though. I usually acknowledge public contributions. Here is the story. Lennart mentioned on the linuxppc-dev mailing list, that he has a iPipe patch for 2.6.32: http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2009-December/079191.html I asked him privately, if the patch is available and he sent it to me with the note, that I can publish it on the mailing list if I feel it's useful. This patch helped me to go ahead immediately with some related development work. I also forwarded the patch to you. Wolfgang. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 11:14 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 04:03:31PM +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote: To get a complete pipeline, you need the -noarch side, and the -powerpc side. ipipe-2.6.32-powerpc is based on ipipe-2.6.32-noarch, which is based on v2.6.32 mainline. From the official I-pipe tree located there: git://git.denx.de/ipipe-2.6.git $ git log --abbrev-commit --oneline -4 ipipe-2.6.32-powerpc rceng02:/data/git-trees/ipipe-2.6# git log --abbrev-commit --oneline -4 ipipe-2.6.32-powerpc fatal: ambiguous argument 'ipipe-2.6.32-powerpc': unknown revision or path not in the working tree. Use '--' to separate paths from revisions From your end, the ipipe branches you care of are remote ones available from the origin namespace, so you should try origin/ipipe-2.6.32-powerpc, and origin/ipipe-2.6.32-noarch is specs. Hmm, is my git version too old? No, I think it's fine. snip x86 does not qualify for this discussion; with a x86-based system, even if the kernel at hand does not support the very latest fancy device you have on board, your kernel will likely still boot and run properly. On the other hand, you would not even try booting your mpc8360 over a kernel built for 44x. But given you want to support both, if either of both happen to be in a poor state in your reference tree, things start hitting the crapper. The DENX tree saved my day so far, because it allowed me to work on all powerpc platforms from a single code base. Certainly kernels for embedded systems often are only menat for one system. That doesn't mean you couldn't build a kernel with support for multiple systems. Sure, but for that, you need to have a single source tree that works for both. This is the gist of the issue I'm facing. The Blackfin uClinux distro was still shipping 2.4.7 in their latest 2009R1 release, albeit they merged the Blackfin-specific bits from the pipeline into their official kernel tree, many moons ago. Incidentally, I'm maintaining those bits for their development kernel directly feeding mainline, so I don't think your reasoning should be generalized. This said, if you have first hand information from the Debian team regarding this, maybe you should tell them to drop us a note; we would be happy to help. No I don't. Just speculation. I just remember trying to use the package and finding that it simply could not apply to the released kernel sources. I understand your point from your perspective. But maintaining our code base for mpc8360 only is not enough for us. The reason why the powerpc patches are DENX-based is simply that this tree worked for me over time, for various platforms (52xx, 4xx/44x, pa6t come to mind), way before mainline did. Xenomai supports recent platforms like the 512x series precisely because of that as well. Does this mean that the pipeline patches will be based on the DENX tree until hell freezes? No, this does not, because the DENX folks are doing their job as well, and make their best to close the gap between their tree and mainline, taking all needed provisions to get their bits merged upstream sooner. Well I hope it happens soon. Things always become much easier when you can work with the official kernel releases. The powerpc support in the main kernel tree seem rather good. Generally yes, it is. We just have to deal with exceptions, and those exceptions used to be many. I agree that things evolve and the situation has to be reassessed from time to time, though. It's probably a good time to do this. A sidenote though: you can run Xenomai over mpc8360 because DENX published this support which was initially based on their tree, on behalf of a customer, like a bunch of other developments: http://www.denx.de/en/Software/SoftwareXenomaiProjects This makes your argument, about not depending on anything being DENX-originated, sound a bit weird. Make no mistake, you owe them quite a few kudos. Actually, anyone running Xenomai over powerpc owe them a lot. Oh I know that. We paid for it. It was well worth it. That doesn't mean I want to use the DENX kernel tree. But at least, you know for sure why having a working kernel is important, specially to those who cannot rely on mainline yet. You did port the pipeline to 2.6.32/ppc32 for running on mpc8360, which fits your needs. But the pipeline patch has to be upgraded for ppc64 as well. Even for ppc32, a patch is normally validated for a set of 4xx, 512x, 52xx, 82xx, 85xx, and 86xx platforms, by the Xenomai standards: http://www.xenomai.org/index.php/Embedded_Device_Support#Supported_Evaluation_Boards_3 Well I managed to get every piece except a few ppc64 bits (which as usual seemed to only apply to parts of the DENX tree. When will those bits go mainline I wonder. They seem to have been there for a while now). I can only test on the 83xx boards we have here, but
Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 16:33 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: Hi Philippe, Philippe Gerum wrote: [snip] On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 17:18 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: You did port the pipeline to 2.6.32/ppc32 for running on mpc8360, which fits your needs. But the pipeline patch has to be upgraded for ppc64 as well. Even for ppc32, a patch is normally validated for a set of 4xx, 512x, 52xx, 82xx, 85xx, and 86xx platforms, by the Xenomai standards: http://www.xenomai.org/index.php/Embedded_Device_Support#Supported_Evaluation_Boards_3 Btw, your patch never made it to the list, since this is a subscriber-only list, and last time I checked, you were not subscribed. Or maybe you posted from a different mail address, but I did not see your mail though. I usually acknowledge public contributions. Here is the story. Lennart mentioned on the linuxppc-dev mailing list, that he has a iPipe patch for 2.6.32: http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2009-December/079191.html I asked him privately, if the patch is available and he sent it to me with the note, that I can publish it on the mailing list if I feel it's useful. This patch helped me to go ahead immediately with some related development work. I also forwarded the patch to you. It must be stuck somewhere, I really can't find it in my mailbox. I'll check on my side again. Thanks. Wolfgang. ___ Adeos-main mailing list adeos-m...@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/adeos-main -- Philippe. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 05:18:02PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: Well I have not been able to find the magic invocation that lets me take the DENX tree (which I have had around for a long time just to look at occationally, whenever I was trying to get an ipipe patch to apply), apply the ipipe patch, revert the DENX changes to get back to a release kernel, and generate a diff of the ipipe changes. It has never worked when I tried. Lennart, It is not so hard (using git) to remove the Denx patches from the ipipe tree. I did this myself for 2.6.30 in about a half an hour. If you don't know how to use git, then you would have to consider the additional time you need to get to understand it. (For me, it was only a year or so ;) In the ipipe tree, the Denx commits have been squashed together into one or two really large commits. So, you can just cherry pick the adeos commits into a new branch, with a few minor fixups. Philippe, I actually agree with Lennart that the Denx stuff is an annoyance. When considering my no-denx branch that I made, I could not see any significant Denx change that adeos builds upon. There were a few Denx fixes for one specific board that were close to the adeos changes, but these were only a few, and easy to fix. So, I could not understand why Denx is a prerequisite for adeos. I understand that Denx sponsored the original PowerPC Xenomai port. Is the reason that ipipe is based on Denx simply to honor that fact? If so, I would not think it a bad reason at all. However, I would still prefer the following ordering for the changes: 1. stable linux (2.6.xx.y) 2. adeos arch indepedendent 3. adeos powerpc 4. denx 5. adeos for denx (minimal changes, I expect) Richard ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 12:10 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote: On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 11:59 +0100, Richard Cochran wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 07:56:28AM +0100, Bernhard Pfund wrote: I'm currently working with a fairly new ppc development board (P2020RDB) by Freescale. The board's BSP went mainline with 2.6.32 and I'd like to deploy an I-pipe enabled DENX kernel for testing. Now, is there an I-pipe patch for said kernel on the release schedule anywhere soon? I got ipipe-2.6.30 running the p2020ds with minimal effort. I can post a diff if that might help you. I should have my own p2020rdb soon... I have noticed some unexplained freezes running xenomai programs on the p2020ds in SMP mode, but I have not yet had time to look into it. I hope we can work together to get SMP working reliably. I'm working on fixing the pipeline for 2.6.32/ppc64, which includes SMP mode. 32bit looks ok in UP mode, but I still need to validate SMP there. So it would be great if you could hammer that patch over your P2020 as well once it's ready. ETA, early next week. I'll keep you informed about this. As expected, upgrading from 2.6.30 to 2.6.32 for ppc64 was a real pain. Anyway, here is a patch which applies against 2.6.32.2 mainline; it is pretty large because it also includes DENX-originated bits, from v2.6.32 to DENX-v2.6.32. http://download.gna.org/adeos/patches/tmp/adeos-ipipe-2.6.32.2-powerpc-2.8-00.patch This is expected to work over Xenomai 2.5.0. Tested over 52xx, 85xx, 4xx for the 32bit support, pasemi for the 64bit part. I did not manage to put my hands on a working ppc32/SMP board to give it a shot yet, so, well, I wish you luck. This said, ppc64/SMP has been validated, so there is hope. Sidenote: ftrace may induce a massive stack consumption on ppc64 under certain circumstances, causing kernel stack overflows. A way to work around this should be to enable CONFIG_IRQSTACKS, but this won't work with Xenomai over ppc64 yet, albeit this does work over ppc32. This patch is in a staging directory for now; waiting for some feedback to go further. HTH, -- Philippe. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 12:24 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 05:03:19PM +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote: On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 12:10 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote: On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 11:59 +0100, Richard Cochran wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 07:56:28AM +0100, Bernhard Pfund wrote: I'm currently working with a fairly new ppc development board (P2020RDB) by Freescale. The board's BSP went mainline with 2.6.32 and I'd like to deploy an I-pipe enabled DENX kernel for testing. Now, is there an I-pipe patch for said kernel on the release schedule anywhere soon? I got ipipe-2.6.30 running the p2020ds with minimal effort. I can post a diff if that might help you. I should have my own p2020rdb soon... I have noticed some unexplained freezes running xenomai programs on the p2020ds in SMP mode, but I have not yet had time to look into it. I hope we can work together to get SMP working reliably. I'm working on fixing the pipeline for 2.6.32/ppc64, which includes SMP mode. 32bit looks ok in UP mode, but I still need to validate SMP there. So it would be great if you could hammer that patch over your P2020 as well once it's ready. ETA, early next week. I'll keep you informed about this. As expected, upgrading from 2.6.30 to 2.6.32 for ppc64 was a real pain. Anyway, here is a patch which applies against 2.6.32.2 mainline; it is pretty large because it also includes DENX-originated bits, from v2.6.32 to DENX-v2.6.32. http://download.gna.org/adeos/patches/tmp/adeos-ipipe-2.6.32.2-powerpc-2.8-00.patch This is expected to work over Xenomai 2.5.0. Tested over 52xx, 85xx, 4xx for the 32bit support, pasemi for the 64bit part. I did not manage to put my hands on a working ppc32/SMP board to give it a shot yet, so, well, I wish you luck. This said, ppc64/SMP has been validated, so there is hope. Sidenote: ftrace may induce a massive stack consumption on ppc64 under certain circumstances, causing kernel stack overflows. A way to work around this should be to enable CONFIG_IRQSTACKS, but this won't work with Xenomai over ppc64 yet, albeit this does work over ppc32. This patch is in a staging directory for now; waiting for some feedback to go further. Any chance of getting it without the DENX bits since some of us really really don't care for those and want to apply against Linus's releases only. Having the patch always fail to apply is rather annoying. It turns out that it really, really annoys me not to have the DENX bits in when working on embedded powerpc targets, but you do have the option of cloning git://git.denx.de/ipipe-2.6.git, and diff whatever you see fit with commit 9d81556f or later. -- Philippe. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] I-pipe for 2.6.32 PPC
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 13:50 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 06:49:11PM +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote: As expected, upgrading from 2.6.30 to 2.6.32 for ppc64 was a real pain. Anyway, here is a patch which applies against 2.6.32.2 mainline; it is pretty large because it also includes DENX-originated bits, from v2.6.32 to DENX-v2.6.32. http://download.gna.org/adeos/patches/tmp/adeos-ipipe-2.6.32.2-powerpc-2.8-00.patch This is expected to work over Xenomai 2.5.0. Tested over 52xx, 85xx, 4xx for the 32bit support, pasemi for the 64bit part. I did not manage to put my hands on a working ppc32/SMP board to give it a shot yet, so, well, I wish you luck. This said, ppc64/SMP has been validated, so there is hope. Sidenote: ftrace may induce a massive stack consumption on ppc64 under certain circumstances, causing kernel stack overflows. A way to work around this should be to enable CONFIG_IRQSTACKS, but this won't work with Xenomai over ppc64 yet, albeit this does work over ppc32. This patch is in a staging directory for now; waiting for some feedback to go further. Any chance of getting it without the DENX bits since some of us really really don't care for those and want to apply against Linus's releases only. Having the patch always fail to apply is rather annoying. It turns out that it really, really annoys me not to have the DENX bits in when working on embedded powerpc targets, but you do have the option of cloning git://git.denx.de/ipipe-2.6.git, and diff whatever you see fit with commit 9d81556f or later. It seems to me that releasing xenomai and ipipe releases that don't apply cleanly to official linux release versions is just rediculous. The x86 parts seem to work fine with Linus's releases, why should any other architecture be different? It is rather inconvinient for a lot of people. I don't believe there is any clean way to generate an ipipe patch for Linus's official releases when they contain bits intended to go with the DENX tree. There are just too many changes all over the place. This is likely because your knowledge overwhelms mine. I'm only a moron, so git diff with a proper commit number, or even patch -R does work for me. Simple things always work for simple idiots, it's a fact of life. Users of the DENX tree are a tiny minority compared to the users of the official kernel releases. That majority should be the target of releases. If you do think that the situation for x86 must be applicable to any other architecture, then I really can't do anything for you, except perhaps suggest to get your feet a bit more wet with those, and probably do some reality check against your knowledge of the embedded world. Aside of this, I don't intend to get dragged into such a discussion, it's a pure loss of time. So please, take what I can offer, or just blame me for being an idiot to have a different perspective from yours, but don't waste my bandwidth. I need it direly to be able to issue patches you can use, even at the expense of cloning a git tree. However, if you do think that some good reason might exist to work with DENX material when it comes to powerpc over embedded platforms, but want to help in issuing a mainline-based version of the pipeline patches regularly, then I would agree to ease your task. So, instead of complaining about how things are not done the way you want, do you agree to help in changing this situation, or what? -- Philippe. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
