Re: options for root file system for MPC8548

Re: options for root file system for MPC8548

[Stuart Hughes]

> 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

options for root file system for MPC8548

[Morrison, Tom]

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

Re: options for root file system for MPC8548

[Kumar Gala]

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

RE: options for root file system for MPC8548

[Morrison, Tom]

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>

Re: options for root file system for MPC8548

[Kumar Gala]

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>

RE: options for root file system for MPC8548

[Morrison, Tom]

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>

Re: options for root file system for MPC8548

[Andy Fleming]

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