From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Adeos support for 2.6.18 merged PowerPC architecture. From: Philippe Gerum In-Reply-To: <4575AE62.8000403@domain.hid> References: <20061124105346.e442448d.benjamin.zores@domain.hid> <4566C5AF.7030107@domain.hid> <20061124113009.08c0a490.benjamin.zores@domain.hid> <4569E699.6050003@domain.hid> <20061127092143.e633cd91.benjamin.zores@domain.hid> <456ACA35.8030206@domain.hid> <20061127125419.3852edd9.benjamin.zores@domain.hid> <456AD5EB.5040901@domain.hid> <20061130133745.272ab4b1.benjamin.zores@domain.hid> <45754723.6050503@domain.hid> <20061205133516.b3b9ae85.benjamin.zores@domain.hid> <45756F92.6060001@domain.hid> <45757B28.50009@domain.hid> <4575AE62.8000403@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 12:46:44 +0100 Message-Id: <1165405604.7218.109.camel@domain.hid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: rpm@xenomai.org List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Wolfgang Grandegger Cc: Jan Kiszka , xenomai-core 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 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. > > Wolfgang, > > _______________________________________________ > Xenomai-core mailing list > Xenomai-core@domain.hid > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core -- Philippe.