Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 18:37 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
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?
Well, it's nothing serious and we should discuss this issue in a
separated thread. I just wanted to have a closer look to the new port
before asking. At a first glance I saw that the irq_chip structure has
two new elements, ipipe_ack and ipipe_eoi. This requires patching of
every PIC interface. There are a few for x86 but plenty for PowerPC.
Philippe, is this really necessary? I would prefer the old style using
"#ifndef CONFIG_IPIPE" around the "chip->ack" in common code.
As just replied to Jan, this is a matter of the arch maintainer's taste.
If you ask me, I would see no issue changing kernel/irq/chip.c on a
per-port basis, for implementing the best/safest approach. Changes in
the I-pipe core layer are not likely to happen there, anyway, so I don't
see any maintenance hell showing up because we fork the implementation
there.
OK, I actually prefer a common solution. When I have my Icecube board up
and running with the powerpc tree (I'm fighting hard), I'm going to work
on this topic.
Wolfgang.
_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
