Re: [Xenomai-help] Build and run xenomai 2.5.5.2 - linux-2.6.33 on imx27

[Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@domain.hid>]

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Fabrice Gasnier wrote:
>    
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I'm currently evaluating xenomai 2.5.5.2 on a i.MX27 platform with
>> adeos-ipipe-2.6.33-arm-1.18-01.patch.
>>
>>
>> I've encountred two issues for the time being  (same with
>> adeos-ipipe-2.6.33-arm-1.18-00.patch).
>>
>> 1°/ First one happens when building a 2.6.33.3 kernel (after xenomai
>> prepare/configure/compile stage):
>>
>> CC      arch/arm/plat-mxc/time.o
>> arch/arm/plat-mxc/time.c: In function 'mxc_timer_init':
>> arch/arm/plat-mxc/time.c:400: error: 'TIM1_BASE_ADDR' undeclared (first
>> use in this function)
>> arch/arm/plat-mxc/time.c:400: error: (Each undeclared identifier is
>> reported only once
>> arch/arm/plat-mxc/time.c:400: error: for each function it appears in.)
>> make[1]: *** [arch/arm/plat-mxc/time.o] Erreur 1
>> make: *** [arch/arm/plat-mxc] Erreur 2
>>
>>
>> I first tried 2.6.31 kernel that was compiling (patched with
>> adeos-ipipe-2.6.31-arm-1.16-02.patch).
>> Looking for differences lead me to patch my kernel with:
>>
>> Index: linux-2.6.33.3/arch/arm/plat-mxc/time.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.33.3.orig/arch/arm/plat-mxc/time.c    2011-02-28
>> 11:44:02.000000000 +0100
>> +++ linux-2.6.33.3/arch/arm/plat-mxc/time.c    2011-02-28
>> 11:48:19.000000000 +0100
>> @@ -395,12 +395,17 @@
>>        tsc_info.freq = clk_get_rate(timer_clk);
>>        mxc_min_delay = ((__ipipe_cpu_freq + 500000) / 1000000) ?: 1;
>>
>> -    if (cpu_is_mx1() || cpu_is_mx2()) {
>> -#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MX1) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MX2)
>> +    if (cpu_is_mx1()) {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MX1
>>            tsc_info.u.counter_paddr = (TIM1_BASE_ADDR + MX1_2_TCN);
>>            tsc_info.counter_vaddr =
>>                (unsigned long)(timer_base + MX1_2_TCN);
>>    #endif
>> +    } else if (cpu_is_mx2()) {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MX2
>> +        tsc_info.u.counter_paddr = (GPT1_BASE_ADDR + MX1_2_TCN);
>> +        tsc_info.counter_vaddr = (unsigned long)(timer_base + MX1_2_TCN);
>> +#endif
>>        } else if (cpu_is_mx3()) {
>>    #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MX3
>>            tsc_info.u.counter_paddr = (GPT1_BASE_ADDR + MX3_TCN);
>>      
> Ok. I'll take this one.
>
>    
>>    #ifdef CONFIG_IPIPE
>>    void ipipe_mach_allow_hwtimer_uaccess(unsigned long aips1, unsigned
>> long aips2);
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MX1) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MX2)
>> +void ipipe_mach_allow_uaccess(unsigned long aipi_base_addr, unsigned
>> long bit_num);
>> +#endif
>>    #endif
>>      
> Look the function above, you are adding a function which is already
> there, please reuse the same function, instead of duplicating it...
>
>    
Not exactly the same, I'd be pleased to use it, but I didn't manage to 
get it working (yet?). It hangs everything when I try to use it.
It seems there are differences beetween existing routine (used by 
i.MX25) and what is needed by i.MX27.
Having a look at datasheet for both products shows i.MX25 has an "AIPS" 
where i.MX27 has an "AIPI".
Mapping in both case seem to be slightly different (registers seems 
different). I'm quite confused.
This is why i created quite similar routine ...

In i.MX25 case:
__raw_writel(0x0, aips1 + 0x40);
__raw_writel(0x0, aips1 + 0x44);
__raw_writel(0x0, aips1 + 0x48);
__raw_writel(0x0, aips1 + 0x4C);


In i.MX27 case:
__raw_writel(tmp & ~(1 << bit_num), IO_ADDRESS(aipi_base_addr + 
0x00000008));

This second alternative seem to work properly.


Please advise.

Thanks.

Fabrice