PPC embedded plans ?

PPC embedded plans ?

[Dag Nygren]

Hi,

I have a working 2.4.2 port for a board for SBS-or (VG4) here
and wanted to migrate this port to 2.4.9.

Checking out the sources I think I  can notice that there is a strong
push towards some kind of "one file" machine definition.

Is this right ?
And what would be the best 2.4.9 to start out with ?
Any written policy on the setup of the machine dependant stuff ?
Any way of getting my board defs into the official (?) PPC source tree ?

BRGDS


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: PPC embedded plans ?

[Matt Porter]

On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 09:52:40AM +0300, Dag Nygren wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a working 2.4.2 port for a board for SBS-or (VG4) here
> and wanted to migrate this port to 2.4.9.
>
> Checking out the sources I think I  can notice that there is a strong
> push towards some kind of "one file" machine definition.
>
> Is this right ?

More or less. Improving the abstraction layer is a continued focus
of development efforts.

> And what would be the best 2.4.9 to start out with ?

linuxppc_2_4_devel is the only sane place to develop new board ports.
See the thread, "PPC bk repos reorg" in the linuxppc-commit archives
for information on getting a copy of the tree.  Go to bitkeeper.com
to get a copy of BK for your system.

> Any written policy on the setup of the machine dependant stuff ?

No. Subscribe to the linuxppc-commit list and read the back archives
to see discussion of how we do things.
http://source.mvista.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-commit

Read the source and follow one of the many examples (K2, Spruce, etc.)

> Any way of getting my board defs into the official (?) PPC source tree ?

When you have _clean_ patches versus linuxppc_2_4_devel, post them
publicly.

--
Matt Porter
MontaVista Software, Inc.
mporter@home.com

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: PPC embedded plans ?

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 09:52:40AM +0300, Dag Nygren wrote:

> Checking out the sources I think I  can notice that there is a strong
> push towards some kind of "one file" machine definition.

Sort of.  To do a new board port in 2.4.9 (in linuxppc_2_4_devel), you
only need to edit arch/ppc/kernel/Makefile, arch/ppc/boot/Makefile and
possibly include/asm-ppc/serial.h.  And arch/ppc/config.in too, of course.
No more new _MACH_xxx's, there's now ppc_md.setup_io_mappings (or so),
to do what used to be done in MMU_init and case'ing of the _MACH.

> And what would be the best 2.4.9 to start out with ?

2_4_devel, http://penguinppc.org/dev/kernel.shtml

> Any written policy on the setup of the machine dependant stuff ?

Nope.  Follow the examples.

> Any way of getting my board defs into the official (?) PPC source tree ?

If you submit them.  Here, linuxppc-dev and linuxppc-commit@source.mvista.com
are all good places to try.  The -dev list more so.

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/