CONFIG_ALL_PPC

CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Brad Parker]

Hi

I tried to build the lastest bk tree (2.3.99-pre6?) last night for embedded
860 and the link failed missing "feature_init()".

the arch/ppc/kernel/Makefile conditionally builds feature.c based on
CONFIG_ALL_PPC

Is CONFIG_ALL_PPC really "all ppc" or is it really "all macintosh platforms"?

Looking at feature.c it looks like CONFIG_ALL_PPC is specific to the
platforms which will boot macos.

I can put a #ifndef CONFIG_ALL_PPC around the feature_init call but I
thought I'd ask the larger question... (and risk a tomato ;_)

-brad

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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Dan Malek]

Brad Parker wrote:

> Is CONFIG_ALL_PPC really "all ppc" or is it really "all macintosh platforms"?

It is really used to build a kernel that you want to boot on "all
PPC platforms."  I don't build any of the embedded systems with this,
althought I suppose (if you _really_ wanted this :-) you could get
the same binary to boot on the 8xx as the G4....It's not on my list
of things to do.

> I can put a #ifndef CONFIG_ALL_PPC around the feature_init call but I
> thought I'd ask the larger question... (and risk a tomato ;_)

Something is messed up.  I am currently editing -pre6, and there isn't
a call to feature_init from setup_arch like there used to be......
In fact, I can't find a call to it at all right now.  I am in the middle
of a ton of 8260 edits, so maybe it changed over the past day or so.

If you must, make the #ifdef in the file match the Makefile.....


	-- Dan

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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Gabriel Paubert]

On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Dan Malek wrote:

>
> Brad Parker wrote:
>
> > Is CONFIG_ALL_PPC really "all ppc" or is it really "all macintosh platforms"?
>
> It is really used to build a kernel that you want to boot on "all
> PPC platforms."  I don't build any of the embedded systems with this,
> althought I suppose (if you _really_ wanted this :-) you could get
> the same binary to boot on the 8xx as the G4....It's not on my list
> of things to do.

There is no way to make CONFIG_ALL_PPC working as claimed, it actually
means all desktop PPC (my VME PreP boards use it). Embedded PPC are so
different, especially wrt MMU (page tables versus hash tables, some
umay use bats, while the other ahve variable size TLB entries...)
that is would be very complex to implement and probably not worth
the effort.

	Gabriel.


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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Dan Malek]

Gabriel Paubert wrote:

> ...... Embedded PPC are so
> different,

Sorry, not enough of these :-) :-).  I wasn't serious, just giving
Brad a hard time......


	-- Dan

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

CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Paul Mackerras]

I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the
linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll
use that).

Does anyone object to this?

Paul.

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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Tom Gall]

Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the
> linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll
> use that).
>
> Does anyone object to this?

Hmmm well not that I object because I don't... but I am working on this POP
board here and technically speaking it's the next in the great PREP / PMAC /
CHRP chain...

CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP_POP?  ICK!

I'm hopeful in the end it'll fall into the CHRP catagory but some of these
firmware differences could be a bear to resolve. But I might be a little
over-alarmist too...

Regards,

Tom

> Paul.
>

--
Tom Gall - [embedded] [PPC64 | PPC32] Code Monkey
Peace, Love &                  "Where's the ka-boom? There was
Linux Technology Center         supposed to be an earth
http://www.ibm.com/linux/ltc/   shattering ka-boom!"
(w) tom_gall@vnet.ibm.com       -- Marvin Martian
(w) 507-253-4558
(h) tgall@rochcivictheatre.org

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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

>Hmmm well not that I object because I don't... but I am working on this POP
>board here and technically speaking it's the next in the great PREP / PMAC /
>CHRP chain...
>
>CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP_POP?  ICK!
>
>I'm hopeful in the end it'll fall into the CHRP catagory but some of these
>firmware differences could be a bear to resolve. But I might be a little
>over-alarmist too...

It's a difficult choice ;)

What about CONFIG_COMMON_PPC ? Still a bit misleading, but probably
better than CONFIG_ALL_PPC...

Ben.


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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Troy Benjegerdes]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 09:07:12AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the
> linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll
> use that).
>
> Does anyone object to this?

I thought were were goign to call it 'CONFIG_WORKSTATION_PPC' or
'CONFIG_DESKTOP'


I'd be happy with CONFIG_DESKTOP, or CONFIG_PPC_MULTIARCH.

--
Troy Benjegerdes | master of mispeeling | 'da hozer' |  hozer@drgw.net
-----"If this message isn't misspelled, I didn't write it" -- Me -----
"Why do musicians compose symphonies and poets write poems? They do it
because life wouldn't have any meaning for them if they didn't. That's
why I draw cartoons. It's my life." -- Charles Shulz

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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Timothy A. Seufert]

At 10:15 PM +0000 11/28/01, Tom Gall wrote:
>Paul Mackerras wrote:
>>
>>  I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the
>>  linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll
>>  use that).
>>
>>  Does anyone object to this?
>
>Hmmm well not that I object because I don't... but I am working on this POP
>board here and technically speaking it's the next in the great PREP / PMAC /
>CHRP chain...
>
>CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP_POP?  ICK!

How about CONFIG_AIM or similar (referencing the three combatants in
the PPC platform wars)?
--
Tim Seufert

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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Tom Gall]

Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 09:07:12AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> >
> > I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the
> > linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll
> > use that).
> >
> > Does anyone object to this?
>
> I thought were were goign to call it 'CONFIG_WORKSTATION_PPC' or
> 'CONFIG_DESKTOP'
>
> I'd be happy with CONFIG_DESKTOP, or CONFIG_PPC_MULTIARCH.

Hmmm But doesn't that suggest there is CONFIG_PPC_SERVER? Ick!

Not to ask a stupid question, but what is this CONFIG_ALL_PPC replacement trying
to accomplish?

CONFIG_PPC_PREP seems to imply the PREP standard for all it's warts

CONFIG_PPC_CHRP same thing... tho to me a PMAC and a CHRP box are well, sorta
the same thing

I hate to advocate this but if CONFIG_ALL_PPC isn't really being "truthful" as
far as what it is, then perhaps testing for something like CONFIG_PPC_PREP,
CONFIG_PPC_CHRP etc maybe isn't a bad idea. Code bloat true and certainly a
little harder on the eyes, but it is certainly alot more clear as far as the
expectations the affected portion of code might have.

Regards,

Tom

--
Tom Gall - [embedded] [PPC64 | PPC32] Code Monkey
Peace, Love &                  "Where's the ka-boom? There was
Linux Technology Center         supposed to be an earth
http://www.ibm.com/linux/ltc/   shattering ka-boom!"
(w) tom_gall@vnet.ibm.com       -- Marvin Martian
(w) 507-253-4558
(h) tgall@rochcivictheatre.org

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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Anton Blanchard]

> I thought were were goign to call it 'CONFIG_WORKSTATION_PPC' or
> 'CONFIG_DESKTOP'
>
>
> I'd be happy with CONFIG_DESKTOP, or CONFIG_PPC_MULTIARCH.

Perhaps PPC32 instead PPC in the above examples, otherwise
DESKTOP/WORKSTATION etc could apply to PPC64 (it crept into the ppc64
tree by mistake at one point since CONFIG_ALL_PPC sounds like all PPC :)

Anton

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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Michel Dänzer]

On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 23:07, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the
> linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll
> use that).

CONFIG_ALL_PPC_MINUS_APUS? ;)


--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member   /  CS student, Free Software enthusiast

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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Paul Mackerras]

Benjamin Herrenschmidt writes:

> It's a difficult choice ;)
>
> What about CONFIG_COMMON_PPC ? Still a bit misleading, but probably
> better than CONFIG_ALL_PPC...

You know, what I am really tempted to do is to split out prep again
and have a CONFIG_PPC_OPENFIRMWARE to indicate pmac and chrp and
anything else that has a working OF.  But Olaf would kill me... :)

Paul.

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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 09:07:12AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the
> linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll
> use that).
>
> Does anyone object to this?

Yes.  For historical note, the old 2_5 tree had CONFIG_WORKSTATION_PPC,
which suited most people.  But there's the fact that most of the
7xx/74xx boards in _devel now can take a video card and be a
'workstation' too. :)

How about we don't do this in 2_4 (or 2_4_devel) at all since it'll be a
bit of a maintance headache (2.4.x, x <= A is CONFIG_ALL_PPC, > A might
be XXX or ALL_PPC, and >= B it got into kernel.org, ick..).

Perhaps we could even go as far as doing CONFIG_OPENFIRMWARE_PPC for
chrp/pmac/pop, bring back CONFIG_PREP for 'PReP', and work on doing
plaform support along the lines of Y/N instead of group A, B, or C.

Or barring all of that messy work, CONFIG_COMMON_PPC :)

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

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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Olaf Hering]

On Thu, Nov 29, Paul Mackeras wrote:

>
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt writes:
>
> > It's a difficult choice ;)
> >
> > What about CONFIG_COMMON_PPC ? Still a bit misleading, but probably
> > better than CONFIG_ALL_PPC...
>
> You know, what I am really tempted to do is to split out prep again
> and have a CONFIG_PPC_OPENFIRMWARE to indicate pmac and chrp and
> anything else that has a working OF.  But Olaf would kill me... :)

Hmm, why? :)



Gruss Olaf

--
 $ man clone

BUGS
       Main feature not yet implemented...

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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Tom Gall wrote:
> Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the
> > linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll
> > use that).
> >
> > Does anyone object to this?
>
> Hmmm well not that I object because I don't... but I am working on this POP
> board here and technically speaking it's the next in the great PREP / PMAC /
> CHRP chain...

Is this a revive of the POP-boards or a we-still-have-a-few-prototypes-lying-
around-so-let-us-port-Linux-to-it event?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds


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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Gabriel Paubert]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Tom Rini wrote:

>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 09:07:12AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> >
> > I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the
> > linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll
> > use that).
> >
> > Does anyone object to this?
>
> Yes.  For historical note, the old 2_5 tree had CONFIG_WORKSTATION_PPC,
> which suited most people.  But there's the fact that most of the
> 7xx/74xx boards in _devel now can take a video card and be a
> 'workstation' too. :)

Right. But even older ones, for example I have MVME boards with PMC video
modules (that's _the_ reason for which I wrote a x86 BIOS ROM emulator,
which will hopefully end up one day in the source tree) which are almost
5 years old.

MVME boards for example are not workstation and yet are PreP or OF-less
CHRP. Why not doing it the other way around, or at least not presenting
the option in the configuration: if you don't select a specific machine,
set CONFIG_{ALL,COMMON,VULGAR,GENERIC}_PPC (pick te one you prefer, I'm
not a native english speaker).

Of course you could also invert the "polarity" of the definition, although
having to select the CONFIG_ELITIST_PPC to specify a non Pmac/PreP/CHRP
machine might not sound politically correct to some people :-)
CONFIG_SPECIFIC_PPC does not sound that bad, however.

[The following is a message from Tom on July 5th, I had started to answer
and then it got lost in a long list of postponed-msgs: it's the day my
second son was born :-)]

> > Which leads me to ask what are the advantages of making gemini part of
> > CONFIG_ALL_PPC?  Is it that gemini is sufficiently close to a prep
> > that we might as well treat it as a prep?
>
> I'm definatly not an expert on the boards, but, iirc, they're as 'PReP' as
> many of the ports in 2_4_devel.  They're not 100% compliant, but they
> could work, but sub-optimally.

It's hard to tell which boards are 100% PreP compliant, given the
fuzzyness of the specification.

	Regards,
	Gabriel.


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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Tom Gall]

Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Tom Gall wrote:
> > Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > > I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the
> > > linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll
> > > use that).
> > >
> > > Does anyone object to this?
> >
> > Hmmm well not that I object because I don't... but I am working on this POP
> > board here and technically speaking it's the next in the great PREP / PMAC /
> > CHRP chain...
>
> Is this a revive of the POP-boards or a we-still-have-a-few-prototypes-lying-
> around-so-let-us-port-Linux-to-it event?

Real product in this case. It has a GA (general availability) date and
everything.

> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Regards,

Tom

--
Tom Gall - [embedded] [PPC64 | PPC32] Code Monkey
Peace, Love &                  "Where's the ka-boom? There was
Linux Technology Center         supposed to be an earth
http://www.ibm.com/linux/ltc/   shattering ka-boom!"
(w) tom_gall@vnet.ibm.com       -- Marvin Martian
(w) 507-253-4558
(h) tgall@rochcivictheatre.org

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

Re: CONFIG_ALL_PPC

[Olaf Hering]

On Thu, Nov 29, Olaf Hering wrote:

>
> On Thu, Nov 29, Paul Mackeras wrote:
>
> >
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt writes:
> >
> > > It's a difficult choice ;)
> > >
> > > What about CONFIG_COMMON_PPC ? Still a bit misleading, but probably
> > > better than CONFIG_ALL_PPC...
> >
> > You know, what I am really tempted to do is to split out prep again
> > and have a CONFIG_PPC_OPENFIRMWARE to indicate pmac and chrp and
> > anything else that has a working OF.  But Olaf would kill me... :)
>
> Hmm, why? :)

Ok, got that.
Is it worth the trouble?

banana:/usr/src/linux # l arch/ppc/kernel/*prep*o drivers/video/*vga*o
-rw-r--r--    1 root     root         3172 Dec  3 11:32 arch/ppc/kernel/prep_nvram.o
-rw-r--r--    1 root     root        17108 Dec  3 11:32 arch/ppc/kernel/prep_pci.o
-rw-r--r--    1 root     root        16412 Dec  3 11:32 arch/ppc/kernel/prep_setup.o
-rw-r--r--    1 root     root         7188 Dec  3 11:32 arch/ppc/kernel/prep_time.o
-rw-r--r--    1 root     root        29084 Dec  3 11:17 drivers/video/vgacon.o

70kb uncompressed code.


Gruss Olaf

--
 $ man clone

BUGS
       Main feature not yet implemented...

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