Status on 403 (Oak) support

Status on 403 (Oak) support

[Donovan, Chris]

I'm trying to run linux on a board with a 403GCX processor on it. I ran into
an error while trying to compile the kernel as follows:

{standard input}: Assembler messages:
{standard input}:83: Error: unsupported relocation type
{standard input}:84: Error: unsupported relocation type
{standard input}:111: Error: unsupported relocation type
{standard input}:128: Error: unsupported relocation type
{standard input}:145: Error: unsupported relocation type
{standard input}:149: Error: unsupported relocation type
{standard input}:64: Error: unsupported relocation type
make[1]: *** [ppc4xx_pic.o] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/d/ctemp/src/src-linuxppc_2_4/arch/ppc/kernel'
make: *** [_dir_arch/ppc/kernel] Error 2

While searching the archives I found a thread which mentioned that that
kernel no longer compiles for the 403 processor and there was no mention of
a solution to the problem. Which version of the kernel should work on the
403GCX? Thanks for your help.

Chris

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

Re: Status on 403 (Oak) support

[Matthew Locke]

lets move this to the list it belongs on...

Donovan, Chris wrote:

> I'm trying to run linux on a board with a 403GCX processor on it. I ran into
> an error while trying to compile the kernel as follows:
>
> {standard input}: Assembler messages:
> {standard input}:83: Error: unsupported relocation type
> {standard input}:84: Error: unsupported relocation type
> {standard input}:111: Error: unsupported relocation type
> {standard input}:128: Error: unsupported relocation type
> {standard input}:145: Error: unsupported relocation type
> {standard input}:149: Error: unsupported relocation type
> {standard input}:64: Error: unsupported relocation type
> make[1]: *** [ppc4xx_pic.o] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/d/ctemp/src/src-linuxppc_2_4/arch/ppc/kernel'
> make: *** [_dir_arch/ppc/kernel] Error 2
>
> While searching the archives I found a thread which mentioned that that
> kernel no longer compiles for the 403 processor and there was no mention of
> a solution to the problem. Which version of the kernel should work on the
> 403GCX? Thanks for your help.

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

Re: Status on 403 (Oak) support

[Dan Malek]

"Donovan, Chris" wrote:

> While searching the archives I found a thread which mentioned that that
> kernel no longer compiles for the 403 processor

Yes, when I merged the latest bunch of 405GP changes I did break
some of the 403 support.  Now that 405 and Walnut are working,
I can apply some patches courtesy of Tivo and Mark Hatle that will
allow 403GCX support again.  Just hang on for a couple of days while
we sort this out again.

Thanks.


	-- Dan

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

Re: Status on 403 (Oak) support

[Mark Hatle]

> Donovan, Chris wrote:
>

I (with the help of Matt Locke) are working with on 403GCX support.
It's in pretty bad shape right now.  If you are interested in helping, I
have some initial patches that fix simple 403 vs 405 differences.

--Mark

> > I'm trying to run linux on a board with a 403GCX processor on it. I ran into
> > an error while trying to compile the kernel as follows:
> >
> > {standard input}: Assembler messages:
> > {standard input}:83: Error: unsupported relocation type
> > {standard input}:84: Error: unsupported relocation type
> > {standard input}:111: Error: unsupported relocation type
> > {standard input}:128: Error: unsupported relocation type
> > {standard input}:145: Error: unsupported relocation type
> > {standard input}:149: Error: unsupported relocation type
> > {standard input}:64: Error: unsupported relocation type
> > make[1]: *** [ppc4xx_pic.o] Error 1
> > make[1]: Leaving directory `/d/ctemp/src/src-linuxppc_2_4/arch/ppc/kernel'
> > make: *** [_dir_arch/ppc/kernel] Error 2
> >
> > While searching the archives I found a thread which mentioned that that
> > kernel no longer compiles for the 403 processor and there was no mention of
> > a solution to the problem. Which version of the kernel should work on the
> > 403GCX? Thanks for your help.

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

Re: Status on 403 (Oak) support

[Peter Barada]

> I'm trying to run linux on a board with a 403GCX processor on it. I ran into
> an error while trying to compile the kernel as follows:
>
> {standard input}: Assembler messages:
> {standard input}:83: Error: unsupported relocation type
> {standard input}:84: Error: unsupported relocation type
> {standard input}:111: Error: unsupported relocation type
> {standard input}:128: Error: unsupported relocation type
> {standard input}:145: Error: unsupported relocation type
> {standard input}:149: Error: unsupported relocation type
> {standard input}:64: Error: unsupported relocation type
> make[1]: *** [ppc4xx_pic.o] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/d/ctemp/src/src-linuxppc_2_4/arch/ppc/kernel'
> make: *** [_dir_arch/ppc/kernel] Error 2
>
> While searching the archives I found a thread which mentioned that that
> kernel no longer compiles for the 403 processor and there was no mention of
> a solution to the problem. Which version of the kernel should work on the
> 403GCX? Thanks for your help.

To figure this out we need to know which instructions the assembler
was trying to assemble.

To do this attempt to build the kernel, and when it fails, cd to
arch/ppc/kernel, paste in the command line that was used to compile
ppc4xx_pic.o, and replace the '-c -o ppc4xx_pic.o' with '-S'.

Then open up ppc4xx_pic.s in an editor, and pull out the
instruction(or directives) at lines 83,84,111,128,145,149 and 64, and
send them to the list.

>From there we might have a clue what went wrong.  Better yet, add in
the source code lines(by reading the third number in the nearest
.stabn directive preceding the line that generats the 'unsupported
relocation type').

--
Peter Barada                                   Peter.Barada@motorola.com
Wizard                                         781-852-2768 (direct)
WaveMark Solutions(wholly owned by Motorola)   781-270-0193 (fax)

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

Re: Status on 403 (Oak) support

[Dan Malek]

Peter Barada wrote:

> To figure this out we need to know which instructions the assembler
> was trying to assemble.

To me, it's very clear :-).  It was trying to use SPRG4-7 that
don't exist on the 403.....


	-- Dan

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

Re: Status on 403 (Oak) support

[Peter Barada]

>> To figure this out we need to know which instructions the assembler
>> was trying to assemble.
>
>To me, it's very clear :-).  It was trying to use SPRG4-7 that
>don't exist on the 403.....

Uh, yeah, that's crystal clear :-)

The point I tried to make is that assembler errors like that are
impossible to figure out without having the context that caused
it(command line, assembler instructions, stabn numbers, etc).

--
Peter Barada                                   Peter.Barada@motorola.com
Wizard                                         781-852-2768 (direct)
WaveMark Solutions(wholly owned by Motorola)   781-270-0193 (fax)

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

RE: Status on 403 (Oak) support

[Donovan, Chris]

> Yes, when I merged the latest bunch of 405GP changes I did break
> some of the 403 support.

When was the last time that support for the 403 was working? Where can I get
a copy of the source code at that point? I understand if there might be new
features that would be missing but I'd like to see if I can get something
working. Thanks.
Chris

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

Re: Status on 403 (Oak) support

[Mark Hatle]

"Donovan, Chris" wrote:
>
> > Yes, when I merged the latest bunch of 405GP changes I did break
> > some of the 403 support.
>
> When was the last time that support for the 403 was working? Where can I get
> a copy of the source code at that point? I understand if there might be new
> features that would be missing but I'd like to see if I can get something
> working. Thanks.
> Chris

As far as I know, Oak has never worked.  There have occasionally been
header files in place to support it, but nobody has worked on it.

--Mark

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

RE: Status on 403 (Oak) support

[Grant Erickson]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Donovan, Chris wrote:
> > Yes, when I merged the latest bunch of 405GP changes I did break
> > some of the 403 support.
>
> When was the last time that support for the 403 was working? Where can
> I get a copy of the source code at that point? I understand if there
> might be new features that would be missing but I'd like to see if I
> can get something working. Thanks. Chris

It's horrendously out-of-date (by nearly two years) as I've not worked on
it since MontaVista took over the 405GP work; however, if it serves as a
historical perspective and starting point to resurrect the 403GCX support,
great:

	http://www.borg.umn.edu/~grant/Linux/index.html

Regards,

Grant Erickson


--
 Grant Erickson                       University of Minnesota Alumni
  o mail:erick205@umn.edu                                 1996 BSEE
  o http://www.umn.edu/~erick205                          1998 MSEE


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

Re: Status on 403 (Oak) support

[Matthew Locke]

Hatle and I have 403GCX code against the latest _devel tree that doesn't
quite work yet.  I can post a patch over the weekend for people that
want to play with it.  Might as well play with the latest stuff and make
that work:)

Grant Erickson wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Donovan, Chris wrote:
>
>>> Yes, when I merged the latest bunch of 405GP changes I did break
>>> some of the 403 support.
>>
>> When was the last time that support for the 403 was working? Where can
>> I get a copy of the source code at that point? I understand if there
>> might be new features that would be missing but I'd like to see if I
>> can get something working. Thanks. Chris
>
>
> It's horrendously out-of-date (by nearly two years) as I've not worked on
> it since MontaVista took over the 405GP work; however, if it serves as a
> historical perspective and starting point to resurrect the 403GCX support,
> great:
>
> 	http://www.borg.umn.edu/~grant/Linux/index.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Grant Erickson
>
>
> --
>  Grant Erickson                       University of Minnesota Alumni
>   o mail:erick205@umn.edu                                 1996 BSEE
>   o http://www.umn.edu/~erick205                          1998 MSEE
>
>


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