* options for root file system for MPC8548
@ 2007-01-30 22:19 Morrison, Tom
2007-01-30 22:31 ` Kumar Gala
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Morrison, Tom @ 2007-01-30 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-dev
Hi,
I've seen a couple threads about root file systems and such,=20
but I am hoping this is slightly more detailed in what I am=20
looking for!
What is the best means to generate/use/support a root file system?
I can download and use ELDK to generate one, but it doesn't look
like it has all the library / utility package support required by
my application (e.g.: perl).
We do NOT want to use LTIB (supplied by Freescale) to create one=20
(for multiple reasons - including the same as ELDK).
I could purchase one via RedHat or MontaVista (but they are=20
expensive and their kernel support is behind).
=20
Has anyone any experience with LinuxLink (TimeSys)
http://lldn.timesys.com.
It looks promising - but I'd like to hear if others have used them?
Thanks in advance!
Tom Morrison
Principal Software Engineer
EMPIRIX=20
20 Crosby Drive - Bedford, MA 01730
p: 781.266.3567 f: 781.266.3670=20
email: tmorrison@empirix.com=20
www.empirix.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: options for root file system for MPC8548
2007-01-30 22:19 Morrison, Tom
@ 2007-01-30 22:31 ` Kumar Gala
2007-01-30 22:42 ` Morrison, Tom
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2007-01-30 22:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Morrison, Tom; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Jan 30, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Morrison, Tom wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've seen a couple threads about root file systems and such,
> but I am hoping this is slightly more detailed in what I am
> looking for!
>
> What is the best means to generate/use/support a root file system?
>
> I can download and use ELDK to generate one, but it doesn't look
> like it has all the library / utility package support required by
> my application (e.g.: perl).
>
> We do NOT want to use LTIB (supplied by Freescale) to create one
> (for multiple reasons - including the same as ELDK).
Can you elaborate on what issues you have with ELDK/LTIB, is it just
package support? If so it might be useful for the developers to know
what packages you're interested in. Or if there are other issues
with them.
> I could purchase one via RedHat or MontaVista (but they are
> expensive and their kernel support is behind).
>
> Has anyone any experience with LinuxLink (TimeSys)
> http://lldn.timesys.com.
> It looks promising - but I'd like to hear if others have used them?
Can't say that I have.
- k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* RE: options for root file system for MPC8548
2007-01-30 22:31 ` Kumar Gala
@ 2007-01-30 22:42 ` Morrison, Tom
2007-01-30 22:50 ` Kumar Gala
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Morrison, Tom @ 2007-01-30 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
You are quick with the questions...:-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Kumar Gala [mailto:galak@kernel.crashing.org]=20
Subject: Re: options for root file system for MPC8548
On Jan 30, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Morrison, Tom wrote:
<snip intro>
> We do NOT want to use LTIB (supplied by Freescale) to create one
> (for multiple reasons - including the same as ELDK).
Can you elaborate on what issues you have with ELDK/LTIB, is it just =20
package support? If so it might be useful for the developers to know =20
what packages you're interested in. Or if there are other issues =20
with them.
LTIB uses busybox and in general seems very limited in its support
(as well as currently backdated in terms of kernel support).=20
ELDK has an incredible set of packages that it supports, but=20
things like many of the scripting languages support (e.g.: PERL),
additional security libraries(e.g.: ipsec), general network=20
libraries (e.g.: libpcap), and some network utilities (e.g.: wget).
Individually, none of these are serious, but altogether it's a lot
to manage - if I had 1 stop shopping, I might go there instead of=20
with the ever incredible ELDK!
<snip rest>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: options for root file system for MPC8548
2007-01-30 22:42 ` Morrison, Tom
@ 2007-01-30 22:50 ` Kumar Gala
2007-01-30 23:14 ` Morrison, Tom
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2007-01-30 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Morrison, Tom; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Jan 30, 2007, at 4:42 PM, Morrison, Tom wrote:
> You are quick with the questions...:-)
I know :)
I think the timesys solution maybe what you're looking for since they
seem to handle security updates to the packages and such. My concern
would be how the handle the e500 platform from a packing point of view.
Do they have just 'ppc' packages, or are they targeted to specific
families.
I mean if you're not concerned about FP performance, use debian/
fedora/ etc and turn on FP emulation in the kernel.
- k
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kumar Gala [mailto:galak@kernel.crashing.org]
> Subject: Re: options for root file system for MPC8548
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Morrison, Tom wrote:
> <snip intro>
>> We do NOT want to use LTIB (supplied by Freescale) to create one
>> (for multiple reasons - including the same as ELDK).
>
> Can you elaborate on what issues you have with ELDK/LTIB, is it just
> package support? If so it might be useful for the developers to know
> what packages you're interested in. Or if there are other issues
> with them.
>
> LTIB uses busybox and in general seems very limited in its support
> (as well as currently backdated in terms of kernel support).
> ELDK has an incredible set of packages that it supports, but
> things like many of the scripting languages support (e.g.: PERL),
> additional security libraries(e.g.: ipsec), general network
> libraries (e.g.: libpcap), and some network utilities (e.g.: wget).
>
> Individually, none of these are serious, but altogether it's a lot
> to manage - if I had 1 stop shopping, I might go there instead of
> with the ever incredible ELDK!
>
> <snip rest>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* RE: options for root file system for MPC8548
2007-01-30 22:50 ` Kumar Gala
@ 2007-01-30 23:14 ` Morrison, Tom
2007-01-31 20:52 ` Andy Fleming
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Morrison, Tom @ 2007-01-30 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
they have full MPC8548 support...and fwiw, the
standard fedora & debian ppc is incompatible=20
with the e500 core (throws floating point=20
exceptions - due to different FP instruction set)...
I like their update support...
and fyi, freescale already turns on software emulation
in their kernel CDS support package by default. We=20
intend to turn that OFF very soon!
t
-----Original Message-----
From: Kumar Gala [mailto:galak@kernel.crashing.org]
Sent: Tue 1/30/2007 5:50 PM
To: Morrison, Tom
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: options for root file system for MPC8548
=20
On Jan 30, 2007, at 4:42 PM, Morrison, Tom wrote:
> You are quick with the questions...:-)
I know :)
I think the timesys solution maybe what you're looking for since they =20
seem to handle security updates to the packages and such. My concern =20
would be how the handle the e500 platform from a packing point of view.
Do they have just 'ppc' packages, or are they targeted to specific =20
families.
I mean if you're not concerned about FP performance, use debian/=20
fedora/ etc and turn on FP emulation in the kernel.
- k
<snip original describing some deficiencies of some distros>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: options for root file system for MPC8548
@ 2007-01-31 9:11 Stuart Hughes
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Stuart Hughes @ 2007-01-31 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tmorrison; +Cc: linuxppcdev
> On Jan 30, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Morrison, Tom wrote:
> <snip intro>
> > We do NOT want to use LTIB (supplied by Freescale) to create one
> > (for multiple reasons - including the same as ELDK).
>
> Can you elaborate on what issues you have with ELDK/LTIB, is it just
> package support? If so it might be useful for the developers to know
> what packages you're interested in. Or if there are other issues
> with them.
>
> LTIB uses busybox and in general seems very limited in its support
> (as well as currently backdated in terms of kernel support).
> ELDK has an incredible set of packages that it supports, but
> things like many of the scripting languages support (e.g.: PERL),
> additional security libraries(e.g.: ipsec), general network
> libraries (e.g.: libpcap), and some network utilities (e.g.: wget).
>
> Individually, none of these are serious, but altogether it's a lot
> to manage - if I had 1 stop shopping, I might go there instead of
> with the ever incredible ELDK!
>
Hi Tom,
I just wanted to clear up some points about LTIB:
* If you want support for LTIB go here: http://www.bitshrine.org/ and
there is a mailing list here:
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/ltib
* Busybox is the default for most platforms, but you don't have to use
it. Also note that as you scale up the size of the root filesystem it
will replace the busybox utilities with the full ones (and manage
dependencies).
* The kernels as supplied for BSPs represent things that are tested and
are known to work. If you're a kernel developer, or just want to use a
later kernel, simply choose the 'Local Linux directory build' option.
This will build any kernel (with KBUILD_OUTPUT support). So you can use
git/cvs/tarballs whatever. All you need is the unpacked source
somewhere on your local machine.
* LTIB does have all the packages you mention. Any that are not there
are easy to add.
* LTIB should not be used if: you want a full desktop root filesystem
(e.g. graphics, multi-media, office apps). Instead I'd recommend using
Debian or some other destktop distro. However for something like the
8548, you'd need to re-built it with the appropriate DPFP aware
toolchain.
Regards Stuart
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: options for root file system for MPC8548
2007-01-30 23:14 ` Morrison, Tom
@ 2007-01-31 20:52 ` Andy Fleming
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Andy Fleming @ 2007-01-31 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Morrison, Tom; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Jan 30, 2007, at 17:14, Morrison, Tom wrote:
>
> they have full MPC8548 support...and fwiw, the
> standard fedora & debian ppc is incompatible
> with the e500 core (throws floating point
> exceptions - due to different FP instruction set)...
>
> I like their update support...
>
> and fyi, freescale already turns on software emulation
> in their kernel CDS support package by default. We
> intend to turn that OFF very soon!
Why? Maybe I'm blanking on something obvious, here, but the code
doesn't hurt you if it's on. But the slightest mistake in building
an application could lead to a crash if it's off. We try to make
sure our toolchains don't produce classic fp instructions, but you
can easily use the wrong compiler, or grab a library that left in a
mtfpscr or something. If FP emulation is on, that won't really
affect performance, and it will mean your program doesn't crash at
random.
And I'd like to reaffirm Stuart's points that you don't have to use
Busy Box, or the built-in kernel. The kernel and Root FS should be
almost entirely independent (breaking user-space is considered a bug).
Andy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-01-31 20:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-01-31 9:11 options for root file system for MPC8548 Stuart Hughes
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-01-30 22:19 Morrison, Tom
2007-01-30 22:31 ` Kumar Gala
2007-01-30 22:42 ` Morrison, Tom
2007-01-30 22:50 ` Kumar Gala
2007-01-30 23:14 ` Morrison, Tom
2007-01-31 20:52 ` Andy Fleming
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).