A stable linux 2.2.xx for sandpoint-8240 anywhere?

A stable linux 2.2.xx for sandpoint-8240 anywhere?

[Ron Bianco]

Hello,

We've been working with the 2.3.16 port from MontaVista.
There are problems as this port was based on an experimental and unstable
kernel.
There are patches (tons) that fix some of the problems we've been seeing,
but we've come to the conclusion that it would be better to start with the
last 2.2.xx version and apply the sandpoint8240 and our changes to that.

So I was wondering if anyone knows of a 2.2.xx kernel with the sandpoint8240
changes already applied?
We're facing a deadline and must concentrate on a custom driver for now.

We've also considered the 2.4.xx-testxx kernels, but have deferred using
that until later when it is stable.

Eventually we'll make our patches for 8240 available.   Our target board is
custom, but might be useful to others doing a minimal 8240 system.

Ron Bianco
Computer Systems Technologist
Level Control Systems
email: ronb@junction.net
phone: 250-549-2558 Ext 8
web:  www.lcsaudio.com


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

Re: A stable linux 2.2.xx for sandpoint-8240 anywhere?

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 11:26:39AM -0800, Ron Bianco wrote:

> We've been working with the 2.3.16 port from MontaVista.
> There are problems as this port was based on an experimental and unstable
> kernel.

I'm not quite sure what's in the 2.3.16 port specifically, but your easiest
route would probably be the 2.4.x-testxx kernels, specifically the ones
from the 2_5 bitkeeper tree (http://www.fsmlabs.com/linuxppcbk.html,
2_5 is on 5005) as it's somewhat similar to 2.3.16 (so it shouldn't be too
hard to get your changes applied) and other 82xx boards are currently working
anyways.

Of course, Dan should probably speak up, as I'm just getting the hang of
all this stuff. :)

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

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

Re: A stable linux 2.2.xx for sandpoint-8240 anywhere?

[Dan Malek]

Ron Bianco wrote:

> There are problems as this port was based on an experimental and unstable
> kernel.
> There are patches (tons) that fix some of the problems we've been seeing,

Really?  Although not suitable for a product, there shouldn't be "tons"
of patches required to make it useful in a development environment.
There may be patches required to work around the different revisions
of the Sandpoint hardware.

> We're facing a deadline and must concentrate on a custom driver for now.

That is where all of the resources seem to be going right now, to
custom hardware.  The 8240 is just a 603 with 106/107 OpenPIC PCI
bridge.  The Sandpoint is what required all of the code changes.  If
your hardware is like a Sandpoint, then there are still changes
required to suit your needs.  Most people aren't building Sandpoint-like
hardware that I know about.

> Eventually we'll make our patches for 8240 available.

Do it quickly, as there will soon be 824x updates in the 2.4 kernel.


	-- Dan

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

RE: A stable linux 2.2.xx for sandpoint-8240 anywhere?

[Ron Bianco]

Thanks Dan & Tom,

> > There are problems as this port was based on an experimental
> and unstable
> > kernel.
> > There are patches (tons) that fix some of the problems we've
> been seeing,
>
> Really?  Although not suitable for a product, there shouldn't be "tons"
> of patches required to make it useful in a development environment.
> There may be patches required to work around the different revisions
> of the Sandpoint hardware.

We do now need something suitable for a product.  And to use initrd as root.

I was attempting to summarize the following conclusions of a co-worker:

"By the way, last night I found info on the one problem we were having with
the linux kernel booting.  The people at Montavista originally ported
linux 2.3.16 to the PPC 8240 chip. all linux 2.3.* versions are designated
as experimental and unstable.  Since then (feb 2000) there have been over
100 sets of patches to the linux kernel.  I'll take a look to see what is
best to do: apply the changes to the stable 2.2.18 kernel, or apply the
changes to the almost stable 2.4.0-test12, the totally latest kernel
version as of last week.  The changes themselves have to change depending
on what is chosen.  The problem with the initial ram disk is not a ram
disk specific bug, the bug is in the MMU paging/caching system and I don't
think it was fixed until 2.3.47 or so. It can cause other subtle problems,
such as crashing during ftp of large files."


> That is where all of the resources seem to be going right now, to
> custom hardware.  The 8240 is just a 603 with 106/107 OpenPIC PCI
> bridge.  The Sandpoint is what required all of the code changes.  If
> your hardware is like a Sandpoint, then there are still changes
> required to suit your needs.  Most people aren't building Sandpoint-like
> hardware that I know about.
>
> > Eventually we'll make our patches for 8240 available.
>
> Do it quickly, as there will soon be 824x updates in the 2.4 kernel.

We'll probably wait to see what those are, so as to avoid duplication.
Yeah, our board is not very sandpoint-like either.  But changing
sandpoint_setup.c (and sandpoint_pci.c) to suit our board seemed the
easiest.    Now that I'm finished debugging the hardware, the final kernel
changes we needed were minor.

Ron


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

Re: A stable linux 2.2.xx for sandpoint-8240 anywhere?

[Dan Malek]

Ron Bianco wrote:

> We do now need something suitable for a product.

There are ways......expecting free downloaded experimental software
probably isn't the best choice to start.

> ........  Since then (feb 2000) there have been over
> 100 sets of patches to the linux kernel.

Maybe more like 1000, or 10,000.  I think I did the original 8240
port back in August 1999.  I have added more than 100 patches
since then.

> ...apply the changes to the stable 2.2.18 kernel,

That would be my suggestion.

> ...... or apply the
> changes to the almost stable 2.4.0-test12, the totally latest kernel
> version as of last week.

Acutally, I think it is -test13, but I wouldn't use 2.4 unless you
needed some of the new features (and most people want them).

> We'll probably wait to see what those are, so as to avoid duplication.

It's basically what is in the 2.2.x brought up to 2.4.  Nothing much.



	-- Dan

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