the door is closing for 2.4

the door is closing for 2.4

[Paul Mackerras]

Guys,

Marcelo has announced that as of 2.4.25, the official 2.4 tree is
going into maintenance-only mode.  There is still a lot of stuff in
the linuxppc-2.4 and linuxppc_2_4_devel trees which hasn't gone into
the official 2.4 tree.  Most of that is board ports for various
embedded boards, and for many of those boards, it's not clear whether
anyone cares whether they are supported by the official 2.4 or not.

So if you have a board that you want to see supported by the official
2.4 tree, and it isn't already, let me know.  I will need someone to
commit to maintaining the port on an ongoing basis before I send it to
Marcelo, though.

We also need people to start moving their embedded board ports to
2.6, along with all the related device drivers, etc.  We are already
past the point where new development should all be done in 2.5/2.6.

Paul.


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

Re: the door is closing for 2.4

[Pantelis Antoniou]

Paul Mackerras wrote:

>Guys,
>
>Marcelo has announced that as of 2.4.25, the official 2.4 tree is
>going into maintenance-only mode.  There is still a lot of stuff in
>the linuxppc-2.4 and linuxppc_2_4_devel trees which hasn't gone into
>the official 2.4 tree.  Most of that is board ports for various
>embedded boards, and for many of those boards, it's not clear whether
>anyone cares whether they are supported by the official 2.4 or not.
>
>So if you have a board that you want to see supported by the official
>2.4 tree, and it isn't already, let me know.  I will need someone to
>commit to maintaining the port on an ongoing basis before I send it to
>Marcelo, though.
>
>We also need people to start moving their embedded board ports to
>2.6, along with all the related device drivers, etc.  We are already
>past the point where new development should all be done in 2.5/2.6.
>
>Paul.
>
Hi Paul

I have various boards based on 8xx that I want to get them in  but I can't
because they depend on some patches that I was told should wait for 2.6.

However I don't think that 2.6 works for 8xx at all.

What is the status of 2.6 for 8xx?

Does someone intent to do it, or should I try to give it a shot?

Regards

Pantelis


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

RE: the door is closing for 2.4

[Stefan Roese]

Paul,

> Marcelo has announced that as of 2.4.25, the official 2.4
> tree is going into maintenance-only mode.  There is still a
> lot of stuff in the linuxppc-2.4 and linuxppc_2_4_devel trees
> which hasn't gone into the official 2.4 tree.  Most of that
> is board ports for various embedded boards, and for many of
> those boards, it's not clear whether anyone cares whether
> they are supported by the official 2.4 or not.
>
> So if you have a board that you want to see supported by the
> official 2.4 tree, and it isn't already, let me know.  I will
> need someone to commit to maintaining the port on an ongoing
> basis before I send it to Marcelo, though.

Our CPCI405 board doesn't seem to be supported in the official 2.4 tree.
It was one of the first ppc405 boards added to the linuxppc_2_4_devel
tree. And naturally I commit myself to maintaining the port in the
future.

> We also need people to start moving their embedded board
> ports to 2.6, along with all the related device drivers, etc.
>  We are already past the point where new development should
> all be done in 2.5/2.6.

Hopefully we will find some time beginning of next year to start
"playing" with the 2.6 kernel.

Best regards,
Stefan.


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

Re: the door is closing for 2.4

[Dan Malek]

Pantelis Antoniou wrote:

> However I don't think that 2.6 works for 8xx at all.

It doesn't.

> What is the status of 2.6 for 8xx?

It's a f'ing mess.

> Does someone intent to do it, or should I try to give it a shot?

I intended to do it, but I'm so busy with non-PPC stuff I never
finshed much of anything.

Right now, it won't even compile because all of the drivers need
updates, then we need the usual processor dependent porting stuff
done.  I have a pretty good idea what needs to be done, it's just
more work than the few weekends I thought it would take.

If someone wants to get the drivers to compile, I'll continue working
on the processor specific parts and maybe we can get it done soon.

Thanks.



	-- Dan


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

Re: the door is closing for 2.4

[Pantelis Antoniou]

Dan Malek wrote:

> Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>
>> However I don't think that 2.6 works for 8xx at all.
>
>
> It doesn't.
>
>> What is the status of 2.6 for 8xx?
>
>
> It's a f'ing mess.
>
>> Does someone intent to do it, or should I try to give it a shot?
>
>
> I intended to do it, but I'm so busy with non-PPC stuff I never
> finshed much of anything.
>
> Right now, it won't even compile because all of the drivers need
> updates, then we need the usual processor dependent porting stuff
> done.  I have a pretty good idea what needs to be done, it's just
> more work than the few weekends I thought it would take.

Once upon a time I had it at least compile, but for my board only.
But then you mentioned you were working on it and I dropped it.

Could you please elaborate on the tasks that need to be done?
I know that the head_8xx.S file definetely needs alot of work,
and you mentioned the drivers.

What is the minimum stuff needed to make it work at least for my
boards?

>
> If someone wants to get the drivers to compile, I'll continue working
> on the processor specific parts and maybe we can get it done soon.

I'd be happy to help at least as long as my busy schedule permits.

>
> Thanks.
>
>
>     -- Dan
>
>
>
Regards

Pantelis


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

Re: the door is closing for 2.4

[Dan Malek]

Pantelis Antoniou wrote:

> Once upon a time I had it at least compile, but for my board only.
> But then you mentioned you were working on it and I dropped it.

I had been working on it, primarily to get the processor specific
changes done.

> Could you please elaborate on the tasks that need to be done?
> I know that the head_8xx.S file definetely needs alot of work,
> and you mentioned the drivers.

The serial driver doesn't compile since the serial subsystem was
reworked.  The old data structures used to represent port
information (in particular serial_state) no longer works.
Yes, head_8xx.S needs lots of work, but to me that is the easy part :-)


> What is the minimum stuff needed to make it work at least for my
> boards?

Make it compile again, I'll take it from there.

> I'd be happy to help at least as long as my busy schedule permits.

Me, too.  Just don't be annoyed if it takes me a while to respond,
especially if testing changes is involved.

Thanks.


	-- Dan


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

Re: the door is closing for 2.4

[Kumar Gala]

A few questions/requests:

1. Can we create a file maybe in platforms for 2.4 that lists the
maintainers of all the boards as it stands for official 2.4
2. Do you plan on closing down 2.4 based development after marcelo does?

Thanks

- kumar

On Dec 3, 2003, at 6:34 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:

>
> Guys,
>
> Marcelo has announced that as of 2.4.25, the official 2.4 tree is
> going into maintenance-only mode.  There is still a lot of stuff in
> the linuxppc-2.4 and linuxppc_2_4_devel trees which hasn't gone into
> the official 2.4 tree.  Most of that is board ports for various
> embedded boards, and for many of those boards, it's not clear whether
> anyone cares whether they are supported by the official 2.4 or not.
>
> So if you have a board that you want to see supported by the official
> 2.4 tree, and it isn't already, let me know.  I will need someone to
> commit to maintaining the port on an ongoing basis before I send it to
> Marcelo, though.
>
> We also need people to start moving their embedded board ports to
> 2.6, along with all the related device drivers, etc.  We are already
> past the point where new development should all be done in 2.5/2.6.
>
> Paul.
>
>


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

Re: the door is closing for 2.4

[Pantelis Antoniou]

Dan Malek wrote:

> Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time I had it at least compile, but for my board only.
>> But then you mentioned you were working on it and I dropped it.
>
>
> I had been working on it, primarily to get the processor specific
> changes done.
>
>> Could you please elaborate on the tasks that need to be done?
>> I know that the head_8xx.S file definetely needs alot of work,
>> and you mentioned the drivers.
>
>
> The serial driver doesn't compile since the serial subsystem was
> reworked.  The old data structures used to represent port
> information (in particular serial_state) no longer works.
> Yes, head_8xx.S needs lots of work, but to me that is the easy part :-)

Well if you can get head_8xx.S in some decent shape I can get it to boot
since in a board of mine I don't use the built-in uart but an external
MAX3100.

Do the serial drivers based on the generic_serial interface still work
in 2.6?

>
>
>> What is the minimum stuff needed to make it work at least for my
>> boards?
>
>
> Make it compile again, I'll take it from there.

OK, I'll try (maybe with taking out the 8xx uart out completely).

>
>> I'd be happy to help at least as long as my busy schedule permits.
>
>
> Me, too.  Just don't be annoyed if it takes me a while to respond,
> especially if testing changes is involved.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>     -- Dan
>
>
>
>
And finally do you think it makes sence to try to consolidate the 8xx
and 82xx drivers?
If we're going to need some major restructuring and/or rewrite of the
drivers that
makes sense IMHO.

Regards

Pantelis


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

Re: the door is closing for 2.4

[Dan Malek]

Pantelis Antoniou wrote:

> Well if you can get head_8xx.S in some decent shape I can get it to boot
> since in a board of mine I don't use the built-in uart but an external
> MAX3100.

OK, I'll work on that.

> And finally do you think it makes sence to try to consolidate the 8xx
> and 82xx drivers?

We've had the disucssion in the past, and I don't think it is.  From a
very high level, they look similar, but there are lots of detailed
differences (like object alignments, 32-bit versus 16-bit fields with
the same names and purposes, and so on).  I think we would have files
filled with lots of #ifdefs and hard to read.  I would really like it
if someone would make compilimentary changes to both drivers, when
they are doing one of them, but that has never happened.  Usually one
driver is updated and I move the changes to the other, if applicable.
For 82xx and 85xx it makes sense to use the same drivers, and we are,
as the CPM is truly identical.  There are some mapping issues to work
out, but that is underway.  I'd like to get this done first, then
visit this 8xx/82xx discussion again.

Thanks.

	-- Dan


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

Re: the door is closing for 2.4

[Hubert Figuiere]

On jeu, 2003-12-04 at 01:34, Paul Mackerras wrote:

> So if you have a board that you want to see supported by the official
> 2.4 tree, and it isn't already, let me know.  I will need someone to
> commit to maintaining the port on an ongoing basis before I send it to
> Marcelo, though.

PrPMC 750 support would be nice to be merged in.

Hub
--
Hubert Figuière - Freebox SA. - +33 1 73 50 2 563

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

Re: the door is closing for 2.4

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 04:38:57PM +0100, Hubert Figuiere wrote:

>
> On jeu, 2003-12-04 at 01:34, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> > So if you have a board that you want to see supported by the official
> > 2.4 tree, and it isn't already, let me know.  I will need someone to
> > commit to maintaining the port on an ongoing basis before I send it to
> > Marcelo, though.
>
> PrPMC 750 support would be nice to be merged in.

Would you be able to test this, if I put up a tree?

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

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

Re: the door is closing for 2.4

[Hubert Figuiere]

On mer, 2003-12-10 at 17:55, Tom Rini wrote:

> > PrPMC 750 support would be nice to be merged in.
>
> Would you be able to test this, if I put up a tree?

Sure I would.

Hub
--
Hubert Figuière - Freebox SA. - +33 1 73 50 2 563

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

Re: the door is closing for 2.4

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 05:57:48PM +0100, Hubert Figuiere wrote:

> On mer, 2003-12-10 at 17:55, Tom Rini wrote:
>
> > > PrPMC 750 support would be nice to be merged in.
> >
> > Would you be able to test this, if I put up a tree?
>
> Sure I would.

Okay.  Please pull bk://stop.crashing.org/linux-2.4.24-pre and let me
know if the PrPMC750 support works for you.  I've only compile-tested
(and re-read) it.  Thanks.

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

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

Re: the door is closing for 2.4

[Paul Mackerras]

Kumar Gala writes:

> A few questions/requests:
>
> 1. Can we create a file maybe in platforms for 2.4 that lists the
> maintainers of all the boards as it stands for official 2.4

An excellent idea.  Could board port maintainers send me entries for
such a file, please?

> 2. Do you plan on closing down 2.4 based development after marcelo does?

Once Marcelo has closed down 2.4, I won't be sending him new board
ports or new drivers.  People can still check stuff into the linuxppc
trees but they will essentially be a dead end.

Regards,
Paul.

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