Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Benjamin Zores wrote: >> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:17:07 +0100 >> Wolfgang Grandegger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I have now a preliminary patch for adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-ppc-1.5-00. The >>> porting was rather straight-forward, as the ppc tree does not use the >>> new "genirq" interface, in contrast to the powerpc tree (that's what >>> you have realized as well). >> >> Well, i guess the old "ppc" arch is bound to die sooner or later. >> New developments should always be done against "powerpc" arch imho. > > Well, the powerpc tree is still highly experimental and only a few > embedded boards are already supported. I guess it will take a long time > before the ppc tree finally gets buried, especially because porting is > not really trivial (due to OF, IRQ layer, etc.), > >>> Therefore the port of the powerpc tree should be based on Philippe's >>> new adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-i386-1.6-00. Unfortunately, I still do not >>> have a board by hand supported by the powerpc tree. >> >> I haven't had much much time investigating the problem till now. >> But from what i've seen from Philippe's splitted patches, many of them >> that were supposed to be generic (i.e. don't have i386 in their name) >> still have references to x86 changes. >> Is it a normal behavior ? > > Unfortunately, "generic" applies only to the Linux part. I realized, > that the new IPIPE support for the genirqs requires even more > arch-specific modifications than the old interface :-( on PowerPC.
How comes? I haven't found time to analyse this for the latest x86 patch, but there it should be "more generic" than before. Do you think this is a genirq issue or an I-pipe problem? Jan
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaiemail@example.com https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core