Re: Build issues with 2.6.0-test3

[Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>]

On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 09:25, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 07:56:55AM -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
>
> > * How best to handle optional support?  One of the patches fixes
> >   a problem of a missing system call (sys_pciconfig_iobase).  In
> >   this case, the platform I was building for has no PCI, so it's
> >   not configured in.  The way I fixed it was to conditionalize
> >   the syscall table.  An alternate way would be to have a module
> >   which is compiled if CONFIG_PCI is *not* set (or alternately
> >   have arch/ppc/kernel/pci.c always be compiled and export the
> >   appropriate functions that just return -ENOSYS).  Comments?
>
> 'cond_syscall' is _supposed_ to work here.  But in this one case, it
> does not.  I've tried tracking this down a little bit, and the 'weak'
> asm bits make it as far as the pci.s file, but not the pci.o.  And to
> make it all the more odd, if I threw the cond_syscall into a file in
> kernel/ (just to try it out), it works.
>

Which "pci.c"?  The one in arch/ppc/kernel isn't even being compiled
in this case.  Are you saying that it should (and behave differently
when CONFIG_PCI isn't set)?

> > * I have a number of boards/platforms that I support that have
> >   not been moved into 2.6.  Can I just send patches for those
> >   as well?
>
> In the same manner you did for 2.4, yes (logical patches, and preferably
> against linux-2.5 (linux-2.6 now?) tree.  If something is missing there
> (it shouldn't be, but it could be :)) that is in linuxppc-2.5, either
> move it over in another changeset, or bug myself / paul / ben.
>

OK.

> > * Has anyone succeeded in building & running 2.6 (or late 2.5)
> >   on any embedded boards (8xx/8260/405)?
>
> No / Yes / Yes.
       ^^^ How?  These compile errors would prevent this.

>
> BTW:
> > Index: arch/ppc/8260_io/uart.c
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /home/gthomas/my_cvs/develop/linuxppc-2.5/arch/ppc/8260_io/uart.c,v
> > retrieving revision 1.1
> > diff -u -5 -p -r1.1 uart.c
> > --- arch/ppc/8260_io/uart.c	12 Aug 2003 12:18:15 -0000	1.1
> > +++ arch/ppc/8260_io/uart.c	12 Aug 2003 13:30:40 -0000
> > @@ -2389,11 +2389,11 @@ void kgdb_map_scc(void)
> >  	up->smc_mrblr = RX_BUF_SIZE;		/* receive buffer length */
> >  	up->smc_maxidl = RX_BUF_SIZE;
> >  }
> >  #endif
> >
> > -static kdev_t serial_console_device(struct console *c)
> > +static struct tty_driver *serial_console_device(struct console *c, int *index)
> >  {
> >  	*index = c->index;
> >  	return serial_driver;
> >  }
>
> After looking at the similar code in drivers/serial, I don't think this
> is sufficient.  But I didn't dig too far into seee what c->data was
> there.

It seems to be [virtually] the same as in
  arch/ppc/8xx_io/uart.c
  drivers/char/amiserial.c
  drivers/char/serial_tx3912.c
  drivers/char/sh-sci.c
  drivers/macintosh/macserial.c

--
Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>
MLB Associates


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/