Kernel 2.6.x to MPC8540/Microsys Board

Kernel 2.6.x to MPC8540/Microsys Board

[Clemens Koller]

Hello,

I am about to do my first steps to boot a 2.6 Kernel on the
PM854 Board from Microsys (MPC8540) to see how well it works.
I use U-Boot 1.1.2 and the 2.4.26 Kernel from Microsys compiles and
runs fine on the Board as intended.

Now I 've tried the official 2.6.10 Kernel and (cross-)compiled it
within ELDK 3.1 (btw: is there any difference in between ppc_6xx- and 
ppc_82xx- ?) which works fine, too.
I just started with the mpc8540ads platform with early printk and 
otherwise everything disabled (I want a small kernel) and manually
built the vmlinux.UBoot using mkimage. I just want to see if
something comes up to the console (serial port). Well, currently,
it stops at:

    Verifying Checksum ... OK
    Uncompressing Kernel Image ... OK
mpc8540ads_init(): exit
id mach(): done
MMU:enter
MMU:hw init
MMU:mapin
MMU:setio
MMU:exit
setup_arch: enter
setup_arch: bootmem
ocp: exit
mpc8540ads_setup_arch()
arch: exit
openpic: enter
openpic: timer
openpic: external
openpic: spurious
openpic: exit

Okay. I am not really worried about that... at least I got a sign of 
life and debugging output :-)

My questions are now:
Which is the best Kernel source tree to start porting 2.6.x to the pm854 
platform? I would prefer to stuck with the official sources. Is that a 
good idea?

Is it a good idea to just 'copy' the pm854 platform specific files (PCI 
  initialization and some MTD driver options) to the 2.6.10 tree and see
how it works?

As there anybody who has already a working 2.6.10-something for MPC8540 
(well, non mpc8540ads).

Best greets,

Clemens Koller
_______________________________
R&D Imaging Devices
Anagramm GmbH
Rupert-Mayer-Str. 45/1
81379 Muenchen
Germany

http://www.anagramm.de
Phone: +49-89-741518-50
Fax: +49-89-741518-19

Re: Kernel 2.6.x to MPC8540/Microsys Board

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <41E7A410.6060008@anagramm.de> you wrote:
> 
> Now I 've tried the official 2.6.10 Kernel and (cross-)compiled it
> within ELDK 3.1 (btw: is there any difference in between ppc_6xx- and 
> ppc_82xx- ?) which works fine, too.

ppc_82xx is a symbolic link ppc_6xx

> Which is the best Kernel source tree to start porting 2.6.x to the pm854 
> platform? I would prefer to stuck with the official sources. Is that a 
> good idea?

Yes.

> Is it a good idea to just 'copy' the pm854 platform specific files (PCI 
>   initialization and some MTD driver options) to the 2.6.10 tree and see
> how it works?

Copy from where? from 2.4? No.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
A fail-safe circuit will destroy others.                 -- Klipstein

Re: Kernel 2.6.x to MPC8540/Microsys Board

[Sam Song]

Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote：
> > Now I 've tried the official 2.6.10 Kernel and
> > (cross-)compiled it
> > within ELDK 3.1 (btw: is there any difference in
> > between ppc_6xx- and 
> > ppc_82xx- ?) which works fine, too.
> 
> ppc_82xx is a symbolic link ppc_6xx

Well, I also have a puzzle here. In ELDK3.1, could 
ppc_6xx package work for 6xx/7xx/82xx[603e] and 85xx
[e500] target at the same time?

Thanks in advance!

=====
Best regards,

Sam

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
150万曲MP3疯狂搜，带您闯入音乐殿堂
http://music.yisou.com/
美女明星应有尽有，搜遍美图、艳图和酷图
http://image.yisou.com
1G就是1000兆，雅虎电邮自助扩容！
http://cn.rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/1g/*http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/event/mail_1g/

Re: Kernel 2.6.x to MPC8540/Microsys Board

[Clemens Koller]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:

>>Which is the best Kernel source tree to start porting 2.6.x to the pm854 
>>platform? I would prefer to stuck with the official sources. Is that a 
>>good idea?
 >
> Yes.

Thank you, that's what I wanted to hear :-)

>>Is it a good idea to just 'copy' the pm854 platform specific files (PCI 
>>  initialization and some MTD driver options) to the 2.6.10 tree and see
>>how it works?
> 
> Copy from where? from 2.4? No.

Well, I don't know how the platform specific things got moved from 2.4 
to 2.6 in the past (yes I am a newbie). I have a working 
2.4.26-pm854-something with a platform/pm854_defconfig (and some changed 
non-official(?) files for the PCI and MTDs) and I want to get the same 
for 2.6.10+ without changing things at the wrong place.

Best greets,

Clemens Koller
_______________________________
R&D Imaging Devices
Anagramm GmbH
Rupert-Mayer-Str. 45/1
81379 Muenchen
Germany

http://www.anagramm.de
Phone: +49-89-741518-50
Fax: +49-89-741518-19

Re: Kernel 2.6.x to MPC8540/Microsys Board

[Kumar Gala]

[snip]
> My questions are now:
>  Which is the best Kernel source tree to start porting 2.6.x to the=20
> pm854
> platform? I would prefer to stuck with the official sources. Is that a
> good idea?

I would suggest 2.6.10 if you want an official kernel release.  Is this=20=

board generally available to people?  If so, and you want support for=20
this board in the official kernel, send me your patches for review. =20
I'll then push them up stream.

Be aware there are some infrastrucal changes I'm working on that moves=20=

the 85xx sub-arch support from using OCP to platform_device.  However,=20=

these have minor changes on the board files.

> Is it a good idea to just 'copy' the pm854 platform specific files =
(PCI
> =A0 initialization and some MTD driver options) to the 2.6.10 tree and=20=

> see
>  how it works?

I would take a look at how 2.6 is structured for 85xx.  I tried to do a=20=

better job and provide more common code for a board port to leverage. =20=

So for something like PCI, you should hopefully just have to setup your=20=

memory map and IRQ routing.

> As there anybody who has already a working 2.6.10-something for =
MPC8540
> (well, non mpc8540ads).

I'm not aware of anyone else with another MPC8540 port, I know of other=20=

MPC8560's, and MPC8555/41 ports.

- kumar

Re: Kernel 2.6.x to MPC8540/Microsys Board

[Clemens Koller]

Kumar Gala wrote:

> I would suggest 2.6.10 if you want an official kernel release.  Is this 
> board generally available to people? 

Yes: www.microsys.de miriac Module: PM854 (and some others)

> Be aware there are some infrastrucal changes I'm working on that moves 
> the 85xx sub-arch support from using OCP to platform_device.  However, 
> these have minor changes on the board files.

I've read your last mails in this list... therefore I am asking. :-)
I just don't want to re-invent the wheel twice. In the pm854 specific
things there are also some OCP updates. (Well, I am still reading lots 
of code... newland for me)
I try to contact the developer Josef Wagner at Microsys who was working
on the 2.4.26-sth.

> I would take a look at how 2.6 is structured for 85xx.  I tried to do a 
> better job and provide more common code for a board port to leverage.  
> So for something like PCI, you should hopefully just have to setup your 
> memory map and IRQ routing.

I am comparing 2.4.26-sth with 2.6.10 now. The changes are manageable as 
far as I got it. Where can I get the current work from you?!

Greets,

Clemens Koller
_______________________________
R&D Imaging Devices
Anagramm GmbH
Rupert-Mayer-Str. 45/1
81379 Muenchen
Germany

http://www.anagramm.de
Phone: +49-89-741518-50
Fax: +49-89-741518-19

Re: Kernel 2.6.x to MPC8540/Microsys Board

[Kumar Gala]

Clemens,

I would to just use 2.6.10 as starting point and get that working.  The=20=

amount of changes to board code is about 100 lines to go from OCP to=20
platform_device.  I should be releasing patches for this upstream today=20=

and will CC the linuxppc-embedded list, so if you really want them you=20=

can get them, but I dont think its worth the pain for you.

- kumar

On Jan 14, 2005, at 9:33 AM, Clemens Koller wrote:

> Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> > I would suggest 2.6.10 if you want an official kernel release.=A0 Is=20=

> this
> > board generally available to people?
>
>  Yes: www.microsys.de miriac Module: PM854 (and some others)
>
> > Be aware there are some infrastrucal changes I'm working on that=20
> moves
> > the 85xx sub-arch support from using OCP to platform_device.=A0=20
> However,
> > these have minor changes on the board files.
>
> I've read your last mails in this list... therefore I am asking. :-)
>  I just don't want to re-invent the wheel twice. In the pm854 specific
>  things there are also some OCP updates. (Well, I am still reading =
lots
> of code... newland for me)
>  I try to contact the developer Josef Wagner at Microsys who was=20
> working
>  on the 2.4.26-sth.
>
> > I would take a look at how 2.6 is structured for 85xx.=A0 I tried to=20=

> do a
> > better job and provide more common code for a board port to=20
> leverage.=A0
> > So for something like PCI, you should hopefully just have to setup=20=

> your
> > memory map and IRQ routing.
>
> I am comparing 2.4.26-sth with 2.6.10 now. The changes are manageable=20=

> as
> far as I got it. Where can I get the current work from you?!
>
> Greets,
>
> Clemens Koller
> _______________________________
> R&D Imaging Devices
>  Anagramm GmbH
>  Rupert-Mayer-Str. 45/1
>  81379 Muenchen
>  Germany
>
> http://www.anagramm.de
> Phone: +49-89-741518-50
>  Fax: +49-89-741518-19
>  _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
>  Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded

Re: Kernel 2.6.x to MPC8540/Microsys Board

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <41E7D8F7.4060901@anagramm.de> you wrote:
> 
> >>Which is the best Kernel source tree to start porting 2.6.x to the pm854 
> >>platform? I would prefer to stuck with the official sources. Is that a 
> >>good idea?
>  >
> > Yes.
> 
> Thank you, that's what I wanted to hear :-)

Note that I didn't comment on using 2.6 in the first place.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
F u cn rd ths u cnt spl wrth a dm!