From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from az33egw01.freescale.net (az33egw01.freescale.net [192.88.158.102]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2898167A64 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:34:14 +1100 (EST) In-Reply-To: <422E3CCD.4020204@kylo.net> References: <422E3CCD.4020204@kylo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Message-Id: <720b2b390f49b33d5457acde69c745a2@freescale.com> From: Kumar Gala Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 18:34:05 -0600 To: "Kylo Ginsberg" Cc: inuxppc-embedded List Subject: Re: Recommended kernel version/tree for use with MPC8555E? List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Kylo, All active development for PPC (including the MPCE8555E) is being done=20= in 2.6 only at this point. I would recommend using 2.6.11 as a=20 starting point. Any code to support new features of the MPC8555E will=20= be developed for 2.6 at this point. The 2.6.11 tree has support for both the MPC8560 ADS board=20 (mpc8560_ads_defconfig) and the MPC8555 CDS board=20 (mpc8555_cds_defconfig). Those should be good starting points for any=20= work you are doing. - kumar On Mar 8, 2005, at 6:01 PM, Kylo Ginsberg wrote: > I've just started working on s/w for an 8555E-based board.=A0 On the=20= > 8555E > I will be using the TSECs (Gigabit ethernet interfaces), DMA engines, > the security engine, UARTs, DDR and Local Bus controllers and that's > about it. > > Right now I've got an MPC8560ADS eval board to test against.=A0 This=20= > board > came with a 2.4.26-based kernel; it boots ok and runs the basic apps > fine, however I haven't yet had an opportunity to exercise the wide > array of functionality on the chip, so I don't know what gotchas or > porting difficulties I might meet ahead. > > Based on that, what kernel version/tree would you recommend?=A0 Should = I > stick with what I've got, move to a ppc-specific 2.4 tree, or jump to > 2.6.x?=A0 Are there performance/features vs. stability tradeoffs I = should > be warned of? > > Thanks in advance for any thoughts you may have. > > Kylo > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-embedded mailing list > Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org > https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded