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?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to