From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4575AE62.8000403@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:37:38 +0100 From: Wolfgang Grandegger MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Adeos support for 2.6.18 merged PowerPC architecture. 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> In-Reply-To: <45757B28.50009@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; 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: Jan Kiszka Cc: xenomai-core 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. Wolfgang,