From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <50C5F784.6040801@wanadoo.fr> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:53:56 +0100 From: Thierry Bultel MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50C1EF04.1090506@wanadoo.fr> <50C236B9.3030507@xenomai.org> <50C4EF5A.3030502@wanadoo.fr> <50C524A6.6020006@xenomai.org> In-Reply-To: <50C524A6.6020006@xenomai.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Xenomai] iMX6q 1Hz tick List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org Le 10/12/2012 00:54, Gilles Chanteperdrix a =C3=A9crit : > On 12/09/2012 09:06 PM, Thierry Bultel wrote: >=20 >> Le 07/12/2012 19:34, Gilles Chanteperdrix a =C3=A9crit : >>> On 12/07/2012 02:28 PM, Thierry Bultel wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >> >> Hello Gilles, >> >>>> >>>> I have "successfully" patched a 3.0.35 kernel from Freescale with >>>> adeos-ipipe-3.0.36-1.18.11 >>>> >>>> I have -not- applied the adeos-ipipe-3.0.36-arm-1.18-11-pre.patch >>>> that showed too much "revert patch detected" errors. >>> >>> >>> >>> The patch should apply cleanly, the question, if you get too many >>> rejections, it is because you do not apply it to the proper branch. >>> >> >> Of course it was not. >> I started with a kernel provided by the module manufacturer. I estimat= e=20 >> that this kernel is "almost" a rel_imx_3.0.35_12.09.02, I mean, that >> I have not found a closer tag than this one. >> >> My first idea was to attempt to apply the patches to that kernel >> directly. I was not expecting it would have been simple, and it was=20 >> actually not. But after a few hours I came to the initial result I sai= d. >> >> >> >>>> >>>> BTW, I have understand that its purpose was mainly to upgrade to 3.0= .36, >>>> but what is actually the role of the >>>> adeos-ipipe-3.0.36-arm-1.18-11-post.patch ? (I applied it). >>> >>> >>> I have explained this in a previous mail. >> >> Ok, I will seek in the history. I would be nice if the explanation >> was in the README. >> >>> >>>> >>>> I had to deal with some rejections but at least the kernel is bootin= g >>>> and my application running. >>>> >>>> But the target is very slow, and /proc/xenomai/irq shows that the >>>> [timer] irq only comes about every 1 second. >>>> >>>> The /proc/interrupts shows an IRQ every 10ms, which was expected >>>> since I have CONFIG_HZ=3D100 >>>> >>>> I am pretty sure that I messed up something in the patch process, >>>> however I do not know where to start to look for. >>> >>> >>> Apply the patches to the proper imx release, and everything should be= fine. >> >> >> That is what I did, at last. >> To do so, I have extracted the BSP from the given 'almost'=20 >> rel_imx_3.0.35_12.09.02 kernel, >> taken the rel_imx_3.0.15_12.03.00, applied the patches, >> and brought back the BSP to the patched kernel. >=20 The issues I mentionned are not also present with CONFIG_IPIPE=3Dno, so it is just that the 3.0.15 kernel does not have everything for my boar= d. >=20 > I would do what you want to do with git. Checkout the ipipe-3.0-imx6q > branch from the ipipe-gch.git, then merge it with the vendor branch you > want to use. >=20 Sure it would work and would be fine with git. But unfortunalely I do not have access to the repository of the vendor, but only to a bz2 snapshot of their kernel. I wonder if the right method would be to use git to merge Ipipe to the 3.0.35_12_09.02, and then bring back the BSP that I have isolated as a pa= tch