From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <45E994FB.6000004@domain.hid> Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:32:11 -0800 From: Jeff Koftinoff MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] MPC8641D and CONFIG_PPC_MERGE References: <45E8D44F.7070200@domain.hid> <45E90B60.6060406@domain.hid> <45E92BDF.60909@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <45E92BDF.60909@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 Thank you for your responses, Wolfgang. I still have some confusion; I was able to build and run a xenomai 2.2.0 patched linux 2.6.14 kernel on a Apple EMac, which has a 7447A processor in it - with no changes, and was able to get good latency results in my tests. I am currently playing with a 8641D dual core power pc, it is basically two 7448 processors in one package which is almost identical to the 7447A, along with peripherals (ethernet/serial/pcie). Yet I can't seem to get xenomai compiled for it, even in non-smp mode. The 8641D needs a newer kernel than 2.6.14 ( 2.6.19 is okay ). What should I do? Regards, Jeff Koftinoff Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Heikki Lindholm wrote: >> Jeff Koftinoff kirjoitti: >>> Hi Everyone. I would really like to get Xenomai working on the new >>> Freescale 8641D dual core G4. >>> >>> I see that for linux 2.6.19, Xenomai does not support >>> CONFIG_PPC_MERGE or architectures=powerpc instead of 'ppc'. >> >> Weren't there some experimental powerpc ports already posted some >> time ago (by Wolfgang, I think)? See the list archive. > > I started porting to the powerpc tree some time ago but realized that > it was not straight-forward. My quick hack didn't boot and then I > stopped because of lack of free time. > >>> Please forgive my ignorance; What exactly is the difference between >>> arch=ppc and arch=powerpc? > > Mainly the use of the generic IRQ layer and time of day. It requires an > in-depth review and design of the corresponding Adeos/I-pipe > implementation. Well, the general design is already there for x86 > implemented by Philippe but needs to be adapted. Nevertheless, the > port is planned for the near future. Funding would help, of course. > >>> What is involved in changing adeos to work under arch=powerpc on the >>> 8641D in single core mode? >>> >>> How much more work is involved in changing adeos to support SMP on >>> powerpc? >> >> The 64-bit powerpc target is under powerpc and supports SMP. The work >> required somewhat depends on the specific architecture implementation >> of SMP, but shouldn't be too difficult. > > That's also my impression, and a system for porting and testing is > also required. > > Wolfgang. >