Philippe Gerum wrote:
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!

As a consequence we could provide separated patches in general and 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

Maintenance issues for the noarch part, e.g., if you fix a bug in the common part or add new features it's available for all arch. But I see your point. It's a bit more complicated and there are also patch version numbers.


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to