On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 10:36 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 23:46 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote: > >> On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 14:19 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> > >>> Anyway, there is an unreleased work-in-progress patch for x86 over -rc6 > >>> by Philippe. I recently had the chance to test it and hack a bit on the > >>> SMP IO-APIC part. It seems to work fine under UP, but SMP had some > >>> issues that are identified, but still need to be addressed - thanks to > >>> genirq, now in a widely arch-independent way. > >>> > >>> Philippe, I know you are very busy, but shouldn't we make a pre-release > >>> available already, also to discuss further how to deal best with genirq > >>> on other platforms beyond x86? > >> Actually, the draft patch I sent you did not boot on my SMP box today, > >> so qemu seems to have been a bit too friendly. Knowing that, issuing a > >> half-baked patch would have made no sense, so I finally refrained from > >> doing that. Since I'm now basically in love with the genirq layer (at > >> least for x86) compared to the utter mess that we had to endure > >> previously, I've decided to tackle the issue completely, and rewrite the > >> I-pipe interrupt flow in order to leverage it. Will post something asap. > >> > > > > Ok, here we are. I've just merged 2.6.19-ipipe-1.6-00. It has been > > tested on a low-end classic Pentium 90Mhz, a dusty two-way Celeron > > 750Mhz, and on a terrible Celeron 1GHz oldish laptop. Looks ok so far, > > and even passed the horrid "dohell" test on the SMP box, just smiling. > > However, I don't have the required hw at hand to check if our friend the > > MSI support is not killing us once more. This said, the MSI support in > > 2.6.19 also conforms to the genirq specs, so there's hope. > > > > The patch is available from the Adeos download area, and I've also > > committed it to the SVN trunk/. > > > > Feedback welcome, > > > > PS: I have the corresponding quilt-managed patches available upon > > request, to the people who want to use this work as a reference for > > porting to other archs. > > You mean that you have separate patches for the common and arch > dependent part.
Mostly, yes. The patches are split by function, but this usually correlates with the noarch / arch-specific break down view too. > That would be nice. I'm interested! http://download.gna.org/adeos/patches/v2.6/i386/split/ > As a consequence we > could provide separated patches in general and prepare-kernel.sh applies > them in sequence. Just an idea for the future. > Problem is that we would have to store a set of patches for each Adeos version/arch combo, instead of a single one. What advantage do you see in breaking the Adeos patches down for prepare-kernel.sh? > Wolfgang. > -- Philippe. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaifirstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core