From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.dev.rtsoft.ru (unknown [85.21.88.2]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1BE17DDF81 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:29:26 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <460277DE.8080808@ru.mvista.com> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:34:38 +0300 From: Andrei Konovalov MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Trevor Barton Subject: Re: Arch: powerpc or ppc? References: <4602578C.4010401@isotek.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4602578C.4010401@isotek.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Trevor, There is (minimalistic) support for Xilinx Virtex 4 under ppc. Unless you plan to move those chips to powerpc by yourself, you should use ppc. Thanks, Andrei Trevor Barton wrote: > I've just started bringing Linux up on a Xilinx Virtex 4 FPGA with a > PPC405 core. I'm using 2.6.15, and a crosstools-built toolchain from an > x86 running Linux. The choice of kernel version was because crosstools > identified it as a working combination and I can see no reason to choose > anything different at the moment. > > I'm a bit confused about the difference between the ppc and powerpc > architecture trees in the kernel. I've been using the ppc tree because > that seems to have the requisite sources in it (I'm basing it on the > ML300 code which seems to be the thing to do), and also because that was > the only powerpc-related tree in earlier kernels. I can't seem to find > any documentation as to where the powerpc tree appeared from and why. > > Can anyone confirm that I should still be using the ppc tree? Or even > better, point me to some documentation regarding them both? > > Actually, while I'm at it, pointers to anything useful regarding the 2.6 > kernel and the Virtex 4 would be helpful. I've found a reasonable > amount of stuff myself, but as these things usually go I'll only find > the best documentation after I've solved the problems myself and > therefore know what I'm looking for! > > Thanks in advance, > Trevor Barton >