From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sharella.com (unknown [221.221.144.125]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33CEB68939 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:29:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from xbh ([192.168.0.2]) by bsysjob.sharella.com (bsysjob) (MDaemon.PRO.v7.1.0.R) with ESMTP id md50000031896.msg for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:13:07 +0800 From: "siman" To: Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:29:51 +0800 Message-ID: <001b01c606a8$065d0670$1200a8c0@xbh> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" In-Reply-To: <20051222010003.6CEF16895E@ozlabs.org> Subject: port prpmc610 List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi All: I am porting linux to the prpmc610 board, powerpc610 has the ppc5debug system, I have tried more deconfigs,but failed, The system can not run = the kernel When I execute the kernel, Anybody have any experience to port = this system. Please tell me. Thank you so much. -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: linuxppc-embedded-bounces@ozlabs.org [mailto:linuxppc-embedded-bounces@ozlabs.org] =B4=FA=B1=ED linuxppc-embedded-request@ozlabs.org =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2005=C4=EA12=D4=C222=C8=D5 9:00 =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org =D6=F7=CC=E2: Linuxppc-embedded Digest, Vol 16, Issue 55 Send Linuxppc-embedded mailing list submissions to linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to linuxppc-embedded-request@ozlabs.org You can reach the person managing the list at linuxppc-embedded-owner@ozlabs.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Linuxppc-embedded digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem (Simon Richter) 2. Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem (Alessandro Zummo) 3. Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem (Simon Richter) 4. [RFC] genalloc !=3D generic DEVICE memory allocator (Andrey = Volkov) 5. Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem (Alessandro Zummo) 6. Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem (Simon Richter) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:18:25 +0100 From: Simon Richter Subject: Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem To: Alessandro Zummo Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, nslu2-developers@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: <43A94811.4010704@hogyros.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Hi, Alessandro Zummo wrote: > I've posted a proposal for a new RTC subsystem on lkml (=20 > http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/20/220 ) . I agree that there is room for improvement. Do you have a specific = structure in mind? Specifically, - which functions do you believe to be generic, - how should multiple RTCs be handled, - are read-only (radio controlled) RTCs taken care of? At present, I don't have time to help the cause, but I can provide = hosting for a git tree if desired. Simon -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/attachments/20051221/05aa56= 40/ signature-0001.pgp ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:07:12 +0100 From: Alessandro Zummo Subject: Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem To: Simon Richter Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, nslu2-developers@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: <20051221160712.2d322f42@inspiron> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:18:25 +0100 Simon Richter wrote: > > I've posted a proposal for a new RTC subsystem on lkml (=20 > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/20/220 ) . >=20 > I agree that there is room for improvement. Do you have a specific=20 > structure in mind? Specifically, Hi Simon, the proposal actually had a fully-working patch attached :) > - which functions do you believe to be generic, > - how should multiple RTCs be handled, In my code, the first rtc that register is bound to /proc/driver/rtc = and /dev/rtc (if those interfaces are compiled in, as they are all = selectable). The other RTCs are available thru /sys/class/rtc/rtcX (again, if = compiled in). > - are read-only (radio controlled) RTCs taken care of? You have full control of which functions you will provide to the upper layer. Obivously if you try to set the time on a read-only rtc, you = will get an error. > At present, I don't have time to help the cause, but I can provide=20 > hosting for a git tree if desired. Thanks, I'll consider it if the need arises. --=20 Best regards, Alessandro Zummo, Tower Technologies - Turin, Italy http://www.towertech.it ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:02:55 +0100 From: Simon Richter Subject: Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem To: Alessandro Zummo Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org Message-ID: <43A97CAF.50301@hogyros.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Hello, Alessandro Zummo wrote: > the proposal actually had a fully-working patch attached :) Ah, didn't see that, as I just skimmed over the web archive page you = linked to, which has no link to the actual patch (or I'm too stupid to find = it). > In my code, the first rtc that register is bound to /proc/driver/rtc = > and /dev/rtc (if those interfaces are compiled in, as they are all=20 > selectable). It would be good to have a way to change which clock is the "primary"=20 one from userspace later (userspace because this is clearly site = policy). > You have full control of which functions you will provide to the=20 > upper layer. Obivously if you try to set the time on a read-only rtc, = > you will get an error. Sure. I was thinking of the question which error that should be. Simon -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/attachments/20051221/29bd58= 58/ signature-0001.pgp ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:23:28 +0300 From: Andrey Volkov Subject: [RFC] genalloc !=3D generic DEVICE memory allocator To: jes@trained-monkey.org Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org Message-ID: <43A98F90.9010001@varma-el.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DKOI8-R Hello Jes and all I try to use your allocator (gen_pool_xxx), idea of which is a cute nice thing. But current implementation of it is inappropriate for a _device_ = (aka onchip, like framebuffer) memory allocation, by next reasons: 1) Device memory is expensive resource by access time and/or size cost. So we couldn't use (usually) this memory for the free blocks lists. 2) Device memory usually have special requirement of access to it (alignment/special insn). So we couldn't use part of allocated blocks for some control structures (this problem solved in your implementation, it's common remark) 3) Obvious (IMHO) workflow of mem. allocator look like: - at startup time, driver allocate some big (almost) static mem. chunk(s) for a control/data structures. - during work of the device, driver allocate many small mem. blocks with almost identical size. such behavior lead to degeneration of buddy method and transform it to the first/best fit method (with long seek by the free node list). 4) The simple binary buddy method is far away from perfect for a device due to a big internal fragmentation. Especially for a network/mfd devices, for which, size of allocated data very often is not a power of 2. I start to modify your code to satisfy above demands, but firstly I wish = to know your, or somebody else, opinion. Especially I will very happy if somebody have and could provide to all, = some device specific memory usage statistics. -- Regards Andrey Volkov ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:41:22 +0100 From: Alessandro Zummo Subject: Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem To: Simon Richter Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org Message-ID: <20051221184122.5253df01@inspiron> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:02:55 +0100 Simon Richter wrote: > > the proposal actually had a fully-working patch attached :) >=20 > Ah, didn't see that, as I just skimmed over the web archive page you=20 > linked to, which has no link to the actual patch (or I'm too stupid to = > find it). right.. the link was to 0/6 of the patchset, which is actually only the introduction. real patch was in subsequent messages. > > In my code, the first rtc that register is bound > > to /proc/driver/rtc and /dev/rtc (if those interfaces > > are compiled in, as they are all selectable). >=20 > It would be good to have a way to change which clock is the "primary"=20 > one from userspace later (userspace because this is clearly site = policy). If I'm not wrong, the RTC is usually queried at bootup and written to on shutdown. If NTP mode is active,=20 it is also written every 11 minutes. So my intention was to emulate that interface as a starting point. Then we can update the userspace utilities (hwclock) to let the user choose which clock he want to use. I guess /proc/driver/rtc will be deprecated sooner or later. The /dev/rtc interface only supports one clock. It can either be extended to have /dev/rtcX or we can extend the sysfs one to allow clock updating. NTP mode could then be adjusted to update one or more of the rtcs. Maybe each RTC could have an attribute (let's say /sys/class/rtc/rtcX/ntp) which tells the kernel whether to update it or not. =20 This way we will not have a primary clock anymore. > > You have full control of which functions you will provide > > to the upper layer. Obivously if you try to set the > > time on a read-only rtc, you will get an error. >=20 > Sure. I was thinking of the question which error that should be. -EPERM ? -EACCESS? :) --=20 Best regards, Alessandro Zummo, Tower Technologies - Turin, Italy http://www.towertech.it ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:18:33 +0100 From: Simon Richter Subject: Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem To: Alessandro Zummo Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org Message-ID: <43A9E2C9.7080300@hogyros.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Hello, Alessandro Zummo schrieb: >>It would be good to have a way to change which clock is the "primary"=20 >>one from userspace later (userspace because this is clearly site = policy). > If I'm not wrong, the RTC is usually queried at bootup > and written to on shutdown. If NTP mode is active,=20 > it is also written every 11 minutes. A good ntpd will adjust the speed rather than write to the clock; the ntpd shipped by most distributions can already handle multiple time = sources. I'm thinking of the case where a computer is not attached to a network but needs accurate tim; in this case I'd give it a battery powered RTC and a time signal receiver. As most time signals are low-bandwidth, they may not carry full time information in each tick so it may take several minutes to fully synchronize. In this case I'd like to use the battery backed up clock first and switch later on when synchronized. > I guess /proc/driver/rtc will be deprecated sooner or > later. The /dev/rtc interface only supports one clock. > It can either be extended to have /dev/rtcX or we > can extend the sysfs one to allow clock updating. /dev is the way to go IMO. As far as I've understood sysfs, it carries meta information about devices and drivers only, the actual communication then happens through device nodes still. > NTP mode could then be adjusted to update one or more > of the rtcs. Maybe each RTC could have an attribute > (let's say /sys/class/rtc/rtcX/ntp) which tells the > kernel whether to update it or not. That's entirely a userspace thing. What the userspace needs to know from the kernel is whether the clock is writable and whether its speed can be adjusted. > -EPERM ? -EACCESS? :) -EIO or -ENOSYS would also be possible options. Simon -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 374 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/attachments/20051222/00d0d7= c9/ signature-0001.pgp ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-embedded mailing list Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded End of Linuxppc-embedded Digest, Vol 16, Issue 55 *************************************************