ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Benjamin Delagoutte]

Hello,

I'm new to Linux PowerPC platform, and I'm wondering what ARCH we should
use to build the kernel. There seems to be 'ppc' and 'powerpc'. What's
the difference between the two ?

Thank you !

Benjamin

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Parav Pandit]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 695 bytes --]

ppc = 32bit.
  powerpc= 64bit.
  Correct me if I am wrong.
   
  I am not sure why community didn't adopt the name ppc and ppc64 just like ia-32 and ia64.
   
  Parav
  

Benjamin Delagoutte <BDE@teamlog.com> wrote:
  Hello,

I'm new to Linux PowerPC platform, and I'm wondering what ARCH we should
use to build the kernel. There seems to be 'ppc' and 'powerpc'. What's
the difference between the two ?

Thank you !

Benjamin

_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded


 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Everyone is raving about the  all-new Yahoo! Mail.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1049 bytes --]

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 05:38 -0700, Parav Pandit wrote:
> ppc = 32bit.
> powerpc= 64bit.
> Correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, you're wrong.  Some 32 bit boards are also under arch/powerpc now.

>  
> I am not sure why community didn't adopt the name ppc and ppc64 just
> like ia-32 and ia64.

They did originally.

The new direction is to have everything under arch/powerpc, both 32 and
64 bit.  The reason arch/ppc still exists is because some 32 bit
platforms have not been fully migrated to the requirements to be merged
into arch/powerpc.  Namely, the code has to boot from an OpenFirmware
like flattened device tree.  The PPC 4xx family of processors, as an
example, does not do this yet though there is work going on to adapt it.

Eventually, arch/ppc will go away and all of PowerPC will be under
arch/powerpc.  That's the goal anyway.

josh

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Benjamin Delagoutte]

Le jeudi 24 août 2006 à 07:49 -0500, Josh Boyer a écrit :
> On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 05:38 -0700, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > ppc = 32bit.
> > powerpc= 64bit.
> > Correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> Yes, you're wrong.  Some 32 bit boards are also under arch/powerpc now.
> 
> >  
> > I am not sure why community didn't adopt the name ppc and ppc64 just
> > like ia-32 and ia64.
> 
> They did originally.
> 
> The new direction is to have everything under arch/powerpc, both 32 and
> 64 bit.  The reason arch/ppc still exists is because some 32 bit
> platforms have not been fully migrated to the requirements to be merged
> into arch/powerpc.  Namely, the code has to boot from an OpenFirmware
> like flattened device tree.  The PPC 4xx family of processors, as an
> example, does not do this yet though there is work going on to adapt it.

I'm currently working on a PPC 405 based developement card. Does it mean
I have to work using the arch/ppc tree ? 

What about the includes ? Do I have to use only include/asm-ppc or are
include/asm-powerpc necessary as well ?

> Eventually, arch/ppc will go away and all of PowerPC will be under
> arch/powerpc.  That's the goal anyway.
> 
> josh
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
> Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Parav Pandit]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1115 bytes --]

Thanks for correcting my understanding.
  We would also move our code to powerpc from ppc next release onwards.
   
  Parav
   
   
  
Josh Boyer <jdub@us.ibm.com> wrote:
  On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 05:38 -0700, Parav Pandit wrote:
> ppc = 32bit.
> powerpc= 64bit.
> Correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, you're wrong. Some 32 bit boards are also under arch/powerpc now.

> 
> I am not sure why community didn't adopt the name ppc and ppc64 just
> like ia-32 and ia64.

They did originally.

The new direction is to have everything under arch/powerpc, both 32 and
64 bit. The reason arch/ppc still exists is because some 32 bit
platforms have not been fully migrated to the requirements to be merged
into arch/powerpc. Namely, the code has to boot from an OpenFirmware
like flattened device tree. The PPC 4xx family of processors, as an
example, does not do this yet though there is work going on to adapt it.

Eventually, arch/ppc will go away and all of PowerPC will be under
arch/powerpc. That's the goal anyway.

josh




 		
---------------------------------
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com.  Check it out. 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1498 bytes --]

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 14:58 +0200, Benjamin Delagoutte wrote:
> 
> I'm currently working on a PPC 405 based developement card. Does it mean
> I have to work using the arch/ppc tree ? 

For now, yes.  Set ARCH=ppc when you compile the kernel.

> What about the includes ? Do I have to use only include/asm-ppc or are
> include/asm-powerpc necessary as well ?

I believe there are some hacks in the makefiles to pull common asm files
from include/asm-powerpc when needed.  Basically, you should be able to
just do:

#include <asm/foo.h>

and it should work.  If you're adding new .h files, I suppose asm-ppc is
the place to add them for now.  That's just my opinion though :)

josh

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Matt Porter]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 02:58:15PM +0200, Benjamin Delagoutte wrote:
> Le jeudi 24 août 2006 à 07:49 -0500, Josh Boyer a écrit :
> > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 05:38 -0700, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > ppc = 32bit.
> > > powerpc= 64bit.
> > > Correct me if I am wrong.
> > 
> > Yes, you're wrong.  Some 32 bit boards are also under arch/powerpc now.
> > 
> > >  
> > > I am not sure why community didn't adopt the name ppc and ppc64 just
> > > like ia-32 and ia64.
> > 
> > They did originally.
> > 
> > The new direction is to have everything under arch/powerpc, both 32 and
> > 64 bit.  The reason arch/ppc still exists is because some 32 bit
> > platforms have not been fully migrated to the requirements to be merged
> > into arch/powerpc.  Namely, the code has to boot from an OpenFirmware
> > like flattened device tree.  The PPC 4xx family of processors, as an
> > example, does not do this yet though there is work going on to adapt it.
> 
> I'm currently working on a PPC 405 based developement card. Does it mean
> I have to work using the arch/ppc tree ? 

PPC405 is only supported in the arch/ppc tree currenty. Unless you
want to contribute to the effort to move to arch/powerpc, you'll
have to work with arch/ppc/

> What about the includes ? Do I have to use only include/asm-ppc or are
> include/asm-powerpc necessary as well ?

When you do an arch/ppc build it automagically includes shared
includes from asm-powerpc as necessary. There's nothing to worry
about there.

The goal is to have the new 4xx arch/powerpc support not break 4xx
arch/ppc support. So as boards are merged and verified working,
we'll remove the equivalent support from arch/ppc...

Some boards/chips may just die if no maintainer step up to port
them over...but all the important stuff should get an interested
party once we get the initial 4xx support in arch/powerpc working.

-Matt

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Matt Porter]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:07:20AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 14:58 +0200, Benjamin Delagoutte wrote:
> > What about the includes ? Do I have to use only include/asm-ppc or are
> > include/asm-powerpc necessary as well ?
> 
> I believe there are some hacks in the makefiles to pull common asm files
> from include/asm-powerpc when needed.  Basically, you should be able to
> just do:
> 
> #include <asm/foo.h>
> 
> and it should work.  If you're adding new .h files, I suppose asm-ppc is
> the place to add them for now.  That's just my opinion though :)

That's what I would recommend too. If this is for an out-of-tree custom
port then there's no real concern anyway.

-Matt

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Shawn Jin]

Hi Matt,

> The goal is to have the new 4xx arch/powerpc support not break 4xx
> arch/ppc support. So as boards are merged and verified working,
> we'll remove the equivalent support from arch/ppc...
>
> Some boards/chips may just die if no maintainer step up to port
> them over...but all the important stuff should get an interested
> party once we get the initial 4xx support in arch/powerpc working.

When can we expect this done? I have a 440 based SoC project ongoing
and am thinking when I should start moving to arch/powerpc.

THanks,
-Shawn.

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 16:06 -0700, Shawn Jin wrote:
> Hi Matt,
> 
> > The goal is to have the new 4xx arch/powerpc support not break 4xx
> > arch/ppc support. So as boards are merged and verified working,
> > we'll remove the equivalent support from arch/ppc...
> >
> > Some boards/chips may just die if no maintainer step up to port
> > them over...but all the important stuff should get an interested
> > party once we get the initial 4xx support in arch/powerpc working.
> 
> When can we expect this done? I have a 440 based SoC project ongoing
> and am thinking when I should start moving to arch/powerpc.

There is no set date or kernel release where this will be done.  In
other words "when it gets done, it gets done". :)

josh

ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Bizhan Gholikhamseh (bgholikh)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 681 bytes --]

Hi All,
Sorry for asking this question again, I am still not clear on some of
the issues.
Background:
We have developed a custom board based on Freescale reference board:
MPC8555_CDS with MPC8541E processor running Linux 2.6.11 and uboot 1.1.2
version.
 
I would like to update the Linux kernel to the latest available kernel
2.6.21.
Here are my questions:
1- Should I use ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc to build the kernel?
2- I have seen similar filenames under arch/ppc and arch/powerpc, which
one applies to MPC8541E?
3- Once I build the kernel, could I load the kernel with uboot version
1.1.2 or not? if not what I should do?
 
Many thanks in advance,
Bizhan
 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2092 bytes --]

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Kumar Gala]

On Sep 15, 2006, at 6:23 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:

> On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 16:06 -0700, Shawn Jin wrote:
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>>> The goal is to have the new 4xx arch/powerpc support not break 4xx
>>> arch/ppc support. So as boards are merged and verified working,
>>> we'll remove the equivalent support from arch/ppc...
>>>
>>> Some boards/chips may just die if no maintainer step up to port
>>> them over...but all the important stuff should get an interested
>>> party once we get the initial 4xx support in arch/powerpc working.
>>
>> When can we expect this done? I have a 440 based SoC project ongoing
>> and am thinking when I should start moving to arch/powerpc.
>
> There is no set date or kernel release where this will be done.  In
> other words "when it gets done, it gets done". :)

There is some push for putting a date one year from now as when arch/ 
ppc will go away.

- k

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Kumar Gala]

On Jun 27, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Bizhan Gholikhamseh ((bgholikh)) wrote:

> Hi All,
> Sorry for asking this question again, I am still not clear on some  
> of the issues.
> Background:
> We have developed a custom board based on Freescale reference  
> board: MPC8555_CDS with MPC8541E processor running Linux 2.6.11 and  
> uboot 1.1.2 version.
>
> I would like to update the Linux kernel to the latest available  
> kernel 2.6.21.
> Here are my questions:
> 1- Should I use ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc to build the kernel?

Move to ARCH=powerpc.

> 2- I have seen similar filenames under arch/ppc and arch/powerpc,  
> which one applies to MPC8541E?

There is support for MPC8541e in both arch/ppc & arch/powerpc.

> 3- Once I build the kernel, could I load the kernel with uboot  
> version 1.1.2 or not? if not what I should do?

I can't remember if u-boot 1.1.2 had support for the device tree or  
not.  If not you can use the cuImage target in arch/powerpc and use  
your existing u-boot. (or upgrade u-boot)

- k

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Bhupender Saharan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1301 bytes --]

Hi,

All the new development is happening in arch/powerpc  architecure. So it is
good to use this architecure if you are upgrading the kernel. But it might
not work with kernel 1.1.2, As arch/powerpc need a structure like open
firmware for the parameters.


If you want to stick to 1.1.2 u-boot version then you shall use arch/ppc
architecure.

Regards
Bhupi


On 6/27/07, Bizhan Gholikhamseh (bgholikh) <bgholikh@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>  Hi All,
> Sorry for asking this question again, I am still not clear on some of the
> issues.
> Background:
> We have developed a custom board based on Freescale reference board:
> MPC8555_CDS with MPC8541E processor running Linux 2.6.11 and uboot 1.1.2version.
>
> I would like to update the Linux kernel to the latest available kernel
> 2.6.21.
> Here are my questions:
> 1- Should I use ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc to build the kernel?
> 2- I have seen similar filenames under arch/ppc and arch/powerpc, which
> one applies to MPC8541E?
> 3- Once I build the kernel, could I load the kernel with uboot version
> 1.1.2 or not? if not what I should do?
>
> Many thanks in advance,
> Bizhan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
> Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2712 bytes --]

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Erik Christiansen]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 08:20:28PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Bizhan Gholikhamseh ((bgholikh)) wrote:
> > Here are my questions:
> > 1- Should I use ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc to build the kernel?
> 
> Move to ARCH=powerpc.

Would that advice be specific to the MPC8541E?
Encountering a kernel build error with ARCH=ppc, after configuring as much as
possible for MPC8248, I've just tried ARCH=powerpc on linux-2.6.21.5, with this
slightly scary result:

>>>
  There is no help available for this kernel option.            
  Symbol: EMBEDDED6xx [=n]                                     
  Prompt: Embedded 6xx/7xx/7xxx-based board                   
    Defined at arch/powerpc/Kconfig:384                      
    Depends on: <choice> && PPC32 && (BROKEN || BROKEN_ON_SMP) 
    Location:                                                 
      -> Platform support                                    
        -> Machine type (<choice> [=y])
<<<

(Note: MPC8248 fits in the 6xx group, architecturally, AFAICT.)

At least I can apply a patch (missing from current kernels), to
fix the immediate MPC8248 problem in ARCH=ppc.

For my case then, ARCH=ppc seems to offer more promise.

Erik
(At this early stage, trying to figure which way is up. :-)

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Erik Christiansen]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 05:44:30PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> Encountering a kernel build error with ARCH=ppc, after configuring as much as
> possible for MPC8248, I've just tried ARCH=powerpc on linux-2.6.21.5, with this
> slightly scary result:

Oh dear. Please excuse the noise. That was clearly acute lack of
familiarity with menuconfig.   <blush>

Minus fingerfumbling, ARCH=powerpc starts to build, before coughing up a
bunch of compiler errors:

cpm2_common.c:63: error: 'CPM_MAP_ADDR' undeclared

Is that due to this patch not being accepted?:
   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=8891

If the patch's "State Superseded" means something else fixes the build
failure, then how could I lay my grubby paws on that little gem?

Erik

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Kumar Gala]

On Jun 28, 2007, at 3:36 AM, Erik Christiansen wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 05:44:30PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
>> Encountering a kernel build error with ARCH=ppc, after configuring  
>> as much as
>> possible for MPC8248, I've just tried ARCH=powerpc on  
>> linux-2.6.21.5, with this
>> slightly scary result:
>
> Oh dear. Please excuse the noise. That was clearly acute lack of
> familiarity with menuconfig.   <blush>
>
> Minus fingerfumbling, ARCH=powerpc starts to build, before coughing  
> up a
> bunch of compiler errors:
>
> cpm2_common.c:63: error: 'CPM_MAP_ADDR' undeclared
>
> Is that due to this patch not being accepted?:
>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=8891
>
> If the patch's "State Superseded" means something else fixes the build
> failure, then how could I lay my grubby paws on that little gem?

It probably means there was a newer version of the patch w/changes  
made to it based on feedback.

- k

Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 20:20 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Bizhan Gholikhamseh ((bgholikh)) wrote:
> 
> > Hi All,
> > Sorry for asking this question again, I am still not clear on some  
> > of the issues.
> > Background:
> > We have developed a custom board based on Freescale reference  
> > board: MPC8555_CDS with MPC8541E processor running Linux 2.6.11 and  
> > uboot 1.1.2 version.
> >
> > I would like to update the Linux kernel to the latest available  
> > kernel 2.6.21.
> > Here are my questions:
> > 1- Should I use ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc to build the kernel?
> 
> Move to ARCH=powerpc.
> 
> > 2- I have seen similar filenames under arch/ppc and arch/powerpc,  
> > which one applies to MPC8541E?
> 
> There is support for MPC8541e in both arch/ppc & arch/powerpc.

Why?  Shouldn't the arch/ppc support be killed if it's in arch/powerpc?

josh