From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <461CA604.4050809@domain.hid> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:10:28 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <305035a40704100947n5d426f9ahf8608957a2264f2f@domain.hid> <461BC626.3070403@domain.hid> <305035a40704110201i1ea65f11j162eecc46858f5ca@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <305035a40704110201i1ea65f11j162eecc46858f5ca@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Adeos-main] AT91SAM9261 adeos support for 2.6.19 kernel List-Id: General discussion about Adeos List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gregory CLEMENT Cc: BOUIN Alexandre , adeos-main@gna.org Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > 2007/4/10, Gilles Chanteperdrix : > >>Gregory CLEMENT wrote: >> >>>Hello, >>> >>>We port the adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-arm-1.6-05.patch for AT91SAM9261. >>> >>>This patch must be applied on vanilla 2.6.19 with at91 patch ( >>>http://maxim.org.za/AT91RM9200/2.6/2.6.19-at91.patch.gz ) applied for >>>supporting AT91SAM9261. >>>So first get vanilla kernel, then apply at91 patch then apply our >>>patch instead of adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-arm-1.6-05.patch. >>> >>>For now it works with Xenomai on AT91SAM9261-EK, if someone is >>>intersting we can send the benchmark result. >>>As AT91SAM926x are pretty similar of AT91RM9200, there is a some >>>duplicate code and some common code. >>>In the future it could be also work on all AT91SAM926x, we can test >>>it. But before going ahead we would like some comment on this patch. >>> >>>The better would be working on 2.6.20 which already have support for >>>AT91SAM926x, but we didn't see any arm patch on this kernel nor any >>>file modified on git. >>> >>>Hope this patch will be usefull. >> >>It looks good. I will try and port the I-pipe patch for ARM to Linux >>2.6.20. In the meantime, could you separate the AT91SAM9261 specific >>code and the changes (if any) made to the rest of the I-pipe from the >>rest of the I-pipe ? This would ease distribution and maintenance. > > > OK I made a diff between our patch and > adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-arm-1.6-05.patch. I had to reworked our patch for > removing fake difference. > As you will see there is not many difference between the 2 patchs and > we don't modify the rest of I-pipe. > There is also difference due to the fact that we made our patch on a > kernel patched with at91 whereas adeos patch was made on vanilla > kernel. > > As this diff file isn't really readeable, I can say that the main file > we modified are: > * arch/arm/mach-at91rm9200/Kconfig > -> here we add support for AT91SAM9261 > > * arch/arm/mach-at91rm9200/at91sam9261.c > -> here we add support for TCB0 and modify interrupt priority in the > same way of AT91RM9200 > > * arch/arm/mach-at91rm9200/at91sam926x_time.c > -> and here we add the same code that was in > arch/arm/mach-at91rm9200/at91rm9200_time.c. As it is exactly the same > code added as we use the same peripheral, maybe we can add a common > file ( an at91_ipipe_time.c), instead of having duplicated code. Sorry, I did not make myself clear, I would like a difference between the trees, not between the diffs. In other words, the modifications you made. -- Gilles Chanteperdrix