From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <43535A06.9050207@domain.hid> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:00:06 +0200 From: Philippe Gerum MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Testing the adeos-ipipe-2.6.13-ppc-1.0-00.patch References: <43514FE1.80703@domain.hid> <435155D1.5090302@domain.hid> <435356FB.7080706@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <435356FB.7080706@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Wolfgang Grandegger Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > On 10/15/2005 09:17 PM Heikki Lindholm wrote: > >>Wolfgang Grandegger kirjoitti: >> >>>Hello Philippe, >>> >>>I got Xenomai working on a Ocotea-Board (AMCC 440GX) and a low-end >>>TQM855L-Module (MPC 855) under Linux 2.6.14-rc3 :-). The patch applied >>>with a few hunks and one easy to fix reject and I had to correct two >>>problems. One with FEW_CONTEXT (see attached patch) and the second with >>>"#include " in "xenomai/arch/ppc/hal/switch.S". The >>>include file does not exist (any more) in the kernel tree and therefore >>>I commented out the line. I'm going to perform latency tests on various >>>4xx and 8xx boards next week. Here are some preliminary figures of the >>>TQM855L-Module (CPU 80 MHz, Bus 40 MHz, 4 kB I-Cache 4 kB D-Cache): >> >>If you happen to know some (semi-)comparable figures for the same boards >>using some commercial RTOS, it would be nice to know them also, for >>comparison. > > > Well, we only deal with "free" software. But I can compare the result > from the klatency test with the one from RTAI/RTHAL under Linux 2.4, of > course. > This would be a good starting point. -- Philippe.