From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:47:03 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Oliver Korpilla Cc: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Patch Preview for MVME2100 Message-ID: <20040406184703.GA31152@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20040405172348.GS31152@smtp.west.cox.net> <4071A024.6020005@fh-landshut.de> <20040405183052.GU31152@smtp.west.cox.net> <4072E904.7010409@fh-landshut.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4072E904.7010409@fh-landshut.de> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 07:29:40PM +0200, Oliver Korpilla wrote: > > Tom Rini wrote: > > Applied changes today, and the serial console is coming along nicely, > can log into my board, use ethernet, boot off NFS. :) > > I'm very happy and very grateful. Thank you! > > >>Maybe the CONFIG_EPIC_SERIAL_MODE should be set, shouldn't it? Will add > >>it tomorrow. Should I add that cascade hookup stuff even if there is no > >>cascaded 8259? > >> > >> > > > >You don't need to call openpic_hookup_cascade, if there is no cascade. > >You only want to set EPIC_SERIAL_MODE if the controller really is in > >serial mode. > > As far as I can see from the (sometimes very unspecific) documentation > for the MVME2100 and from the probing in the Linux kernel there doesn't > seem to be an external interrupt (= no 8259) on-board. So I guess I > could drop CONFIG_EPIC_SERIAL_MODE, because I don't need to probe for > interrupts on that source, do I? (I'm a bit confused about that, because > I delved a bit in the MPC107, the LoPEC board, the MPC8240 and the > MVME2100 manuals without very clear info about that) This is all from memory, but.. EPIC_SERIAL_MODE means that the OpenPIC is put into serial mode. This means that the OpenPIC is wired for a number of interrupt, as opposed to 4. Looking at the old patch, this is something you can turn off for the MVME2100. > Can I drop > > /* Map serial interrupts 0-15 */ > openpic_set_sources(0, 16, OpenPIC_Addr + 0x10200); > > too? No connected 8259 should mean no interrupt sources there, I guess. Looking at the old table, yes. > >No. The '0's are wrong. You only need to describe, in terms of > >level/edge, documented interrupts. You then make multiple calls to > >openpic_set_sources(), to skip over the non-existant interrupts. > > For initial testing I have still 0s in there - for the unused interrupts > within the range after the external interrupts. I get a bad interrupt at > 1 - this would be the first interrupt in the cascade I guess, but > interrupts of the ethernet and the UART serial (17 - 2nd internal > interrupt and 29 - 13th internal interrupt) work just fine - console is > responsive, ethernet is stable and fine. If you drop the openpic_set_sources() call for 0-15, you need to drop these from the table as well, FWIW. Similarly for any other '0's you've had. > A very big "Thank" You! indeed. Your advice was indispensable for my > work and it was to the point, too. You're welcome. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/