* Re: Booting Linux Kernel without bootloader
From: Kalle Pokki @ 2006-07-26 6:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Clint Thomas; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <3C02138692C13C4BB675FE7EA240952915DF66@bluefin.Soneticom.local>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1259 bytes --]
On 7/26/06, Clint Thomas <cthomas@soneticom.com> wrote:
> Basically, the system I want linux running on does not require the
> initialization of hardware that U-boot provides, or at least it does not
> need it to boot the linux kernel. I want to load an uncompressed linux
> kernel into memory and start the execution of the kernel, without using any
> kind of bootloader. Is this possible? Or does linux need some kind of
> firmware or other software to tell it to start executing? Thanks for any
> info you might have.
>
Once the hardware is initialised, it is pretty straightforward to boot the
linux kernel. All you have to have is the kernel at address zero, struct
bd_info filled in some place in memory, kernel command line stored in
memory, and registers r3 ... r7 containing pointers to these.
For reference, look
1) include/asm-ppc/ppcboot.h for example struct bd_info
2) arch/ppc/syslib/m8260_setup.c for the registers
If you have some custom hardware, you need to create (basically empty)
platform code, since the existing ones would try to touch some board control
registers you don't have.
But remember, you need to initialise the memory controller and all sorts of
things yourself somehow - with a JTAG debugger or a custom boot loader.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1682 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: DRM git vs. Linux 2.6.17
From: Michel Dänzer @ 2006-07-26 7:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Airlie; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, dri-devel
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0607251030220.30301@skynet.skynet.ie>
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 10:31 +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
> Did you build you kernel with CONFIG_DRM=y? if so don't.
>
> to use DRM CVS you need to make sure in-kernel DRM isn't built-in.
Thanks, but I'm quite aware of that. :)
I suspect this might be a PPC specific kernel build system issue related
to Modules.symvers, so I'm CC'ing linuxppc-dev and including the
original post below for reference. Any hints appreciated.
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Michel Dnzer wrote:
>
> Building DRM git against 2.6.17, I get:
>
> Building modules, stage 2.
> MODPOST
> *** Warning: "drm_addbufs_agp" [/home/michdaen/src/mesa-git/drm/linux-core/drm] duplicated symbol!
>
> and the same for a lot of DRM core symbols (possibly all of them). The
> resulting DRM core module loads, but the driver doesn't:
>
> Jul 24 13:47:27 thor kernel: radeon: disagrees about version of symbol drm_open
> Jul 24 13:47:27 thor kernel: radeon: Unknown symbol drm_open
>
> Removing Module.symvers from the DRM and kernel trees before building
> the DRM avoids these problems. Any ideas where the root of this lies?
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://tungstengraphics.com
Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Slow boot with NFS, server not responding
From: Matej Kupljen @ 2006-07-26 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Edward Jubenville; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <GPECLCIGPLHEOMGPMCPAOEIIDNAA.edjubenville@adelphia.net>
Hi
> I am having trouble booting the kernel with a root file system over NFS.
> Once the kernel has mounted the file system, it cycles through this pair of
> messages, endlessly:
>
> nfs: server 192.168.0.39 not responding, still trying
> nfs: server 192.168.0.39 OK
We had the same problems on a DBAU1200 board, because that board uses
smc91c111 chip, which has small RX buffers, and a lot of RX overruns
happened.
We solved this by specifying additional kernel command line parameter:
nfsroot=,tcp
which specifies that for the NFS TCP should be used instead of UDP.
I hope this helps.
BR,
Matej
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Slow boot with NFS, server not responding
From: Kalle Pokki @ 2006-07-26 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Edward Jubenville; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <GPECLCIGPLHEOMGPMCPAOEIIDNAA.edjubenville@adelphia.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 675 bytes --]
On 7/25/06, Edward Jubenville <edjubenville@adelphia.net> wrote:
I am having trouble booting the kernel with a root file system over NFS.
> Once the kernel has mounted the file system, it cycles through this pair
> of
> messages, endlessly:
>
> nfs: server 192.168.0.39 not responding, still trying
> nfs: server 192.168.0.39 OK
Try connecting to an old half-duplex hub instead of a full-duplex switch to
see if it works. Perhaps the duplex setting is not consistent between the
network driver and PHY.
I have a board with exactly the same symptoms, but I've not yet had the time
to look into this. However using the old hub provided a temporary "fix"...
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1167 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Booting Linux Kernel without bootloader
From: Andrei Konovalov @ 2006-07-26 10:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Clint Thomas; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <3C02138692C13C4BB675FE7EA240952915DF66@bluefin.Soneticom.local>
Hi Clint,
You may want to look at the arch/ppc/boot/simple bootwrapper.
This wrapper links together with the compressed kernel image
into single file. One just needs to load this file into memory
and pass control to the wrapper. The bootwrapper uncompresses
the kernel into memory and passes the board information in bd_t structure.
As an example, Xilinx ML300 or ML403 boards (without any firmware)
can be booted this way: load zImage.elf into RAM (e.g. using JTAG
debugger) and jump to the the wrapper entry point.
This stuff is not in arch/powerpc yet, but recently Mark Greer
has posted the patches to fix that:
[PATCH 0/6] bootwrapper: arch/powerpc/boot code reorg patches
Thanks,
Andrei
Clint Thomas wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I have gone through the Linuxppc embedded and dev lists for information
> related to what I am trying to do, but was unable to find exactly what
> i'm looking for.
>
> Basically, the system I want linux running on does not require the
> initialization of hardware that U-boot provides, or at least it does not
> need it to boot the linux kernel. I want to load an uncompressed linux
> kernel into memory and start the execution of the kernel, without using
> any kind of bootloader. Is this possible? Or does linux need some kind
> of firmware or other software to tell it to start executing? Thanks for
> any info you might have.
>
> Clinton Thomas
> cthomas@soneticom.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
> Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: DRM git vs. Linux 2.6.17
From: Michel Dänzer @ 2006-07-26 14:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Airlie; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, dri-devel
In-Reply-To: <1153899787.20778.99.camel@thor.lorrainebruecke.local>
On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 09:43 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> I suspect this might be a PPC specific kernel build system issue related
> to Modules.symvers,
Actually, now that my x86_64 box is back up, it happens there as well,
so maybe it's related to the Debian toolchain or kernel packaging.
Apologies to linuxppc-dev for the false alarm.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://tungstengraphics.com
Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Booting Linux Kernel without bootloader
From: Milton Miller @ 2006-07-26 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cthomas, linuxppc-embedded
On Tue Jul 25 2006 05:30:39 PM CDT, Clint Thomas wrote:
> Basically, the system I want linux running on does not require the
> initialization of hardware that U-boot provides, or at least it does not
> need it to boot the linux kernel. I want to load an uncompressed linux
> kernel into memory and start the execution of the kernel, without using
> any kind of bootloader. Is this possible? Or does linux need some kind
> of firmware or other software to tell it to start executing? Thanks for
> any info you might have.
To run a powerpc (not ppc, which will be removed) kernel, in addition to the uncompressed kernel you will need to supply a device tree structure, point r3 to it, zero r5, and set r4 to the load address (zero as you have described). See Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt for details. Then arrange for you processor to start executing at address 0. Note that /vmlinux has an elf header, you can use objcopy to remove it or adjust r4 and your start point; the kernel will copy itself to 0, clear bss and set up the stack. The device tree structure must be placed above the bss space in memory, not just the initialized data.
milton
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [Alsa-devel] [PATCH 0/5] powerpc sound, some more patches
From: Johannes Berg @ 2006-07-26 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt; +Cc: Takashi Iwai, linuxppc-dev, alsa-devel
In-Reply-To: <1153864334.18353.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 378 bytes --]
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 16:52 -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> They should still, for sure. Johannes, please sync with Paulus since I
> think you posted previous version of at least some of these that he's
> about to push to Linus via the powerpc tree.
Hm, I don't think I ever posted 'final' versions of these that I signed
off, but I'll take a look.
johannes
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* using BRAM for heavly used Code (on Virtex4fx)
From: Robert Zach so-logic @ 2006-07-26 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-embedded
Hi!
I am working on an ml403 board (virtex4 with ppc core). I am
sucessfully using Linux 2.4 and 2.6.
I have done a few performance tests with networking, applications...
In the Virtex 4 is it possible to use BRAM(which are 10 times faster
then the normal RAM)...
I would like to connect this BRAMS in a special address area...
Questions:
1.1. Is it possible to write a linker script, that places heavly used
Code(or importend Interrupt Routines...) of the kernel in my special
Adress Area(on the BRAM)?
Has anyone already written such a Linker script?
1.2. Or do I have to tell the bootloader to copy the special marked
(how?) heavly used Code in this special Area?
Has anyone done such a thing?
2. Is there a way to tell the Kernel to place heavily used
Application Code or Data automatically in my special Adress Area?
Has anyone worked on such a thing?
Nice greetings
Robert
^ permalink raw reply
* caches on Virtex 4
From: heiguga @ 2006-07-26 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-embedded
Hi!
I am working on an ml403 board (virtex4 with ppc core). I am
sucessfully using Linux 2.4 and 2.6.
I have done a few performance tests with networking, applications...
How can i ensure, that the caches are turned on? (is there a special
Register?)
Where are the caches turned on?
nice greetings
Robert
^ permalink raw reply
* RE: Slow boot with NFS, server not responding
From: Edward Jubenville @ 2006-07-26 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrei Konovalov, Matej Kupljen; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <44C65097.2030601@ru.mvista.com>
Andrei wrote:
> Did you try using ethereal or tcpdump to see what is going on the wire?
I ran ethereal on the NFS server and on a PC connected to the same hub as
the target board highlighted the problem. Many NFS READ REPLY messages from
the server were getting lost on their way to the target board. The default
timeout was slow (about 1 second) so boot time was grossly extended. The
packets were getting dropped by a Bay Networks switch. Bypassing the switch
temporarily solved the problem, but I needed a more robust solution.
Matej wrote:
> We solved this by specifying additional kernel command line parameter:
> nfsroot=,tcp
> which specifies that for the NFS TCP should be used instead of UDP.
I tried that, and the behavior changed only a little bit. I would still get
the original error messages, but I would also get TCP checksum errors
reported. I think the problematic switch was being overwhelmed. I then
looked at other NFS mount arguments, and tried lowering read/write sizes to
fit into a single Ethernet packet.
I tried:
nfsroot=...,rsize=1024,wsize=1024
and that fixed the problem!
Thanks for the help!
Ed Jubenville
^ permalink raw reply
* RE: caches on Virtex 4
From: Martin, Tim @ 2006-07-26 21:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: heiguga, linuxppc-embedded
Robert,
There are several registers/etc that affect the caches on the Virtex4
PPC core.
Step 1 - Make sure your FPGA is configured to have caches in the memory
regions you're interested in caching. Your FPGA designer should have
done this in the EDK (check options in the MHS file).
Step 2 - Make sure the individual cache regions are enabled. Look at
the Xilinx standalone BSP to see how this works, or read the processor
manual. E.g. xcache_l.c (a Xilinx standalone BSP file) in
XCache_EnableDCache modifies SGR, DCWR, and DCCR SPRs.
Xcache_EnableICache modifies SGR and ICCR SPRs.
Step 3- Make sure the cache configuration register (CCR0) is configured
correctly.
By default, I'm pretty sure you only need to worry about Step 1, as I
thought Step2 and 3 were handled by the kernel early in the boot process
and/or u-boot.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linuxppc-embedded-bounces+tmartin=3Dviasat.com@ozlabs.org=20
> [mailto:linuxppc-embedded-bounces+tmartin=3Dviasat.com@ozlabs.or
> g] On Behalf Of heiguga
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:59 AM
> To: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> Subject: caches on Virtex 4
>=20
> Hi!
>=20
> I am working on an ml403 board (virtex4 with ppc core). I am=20
> sucessfully using Linux 2.4 and 2.6.
> I have done a few performance tests with networking, applications...
>=20
> How can i ensure, that the caches are turned on? (is there a special
> Register?)
> Where are the caches turned on?
>=20
> nice greetings
> Robert
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
> Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
>=20
^ permalink raw reply
* Serial issue
From: Lee Revell @ 2006-07-26 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-embedded
I'm trying to connect to a Yosemite 440 PPC board using the serial
console. I've tried everything in every Linux Serial FAQ and HOWTO but
no matter what, I can receive but I cannot transmit.
I know the cable is good, and the PPC board seems OK as I can see all
the boot messages. Could it be a bug in my host's serial port? I'm
using a Via EPIA M6000.
$ sudo cat /proc/tty/driver/serial
serinfo:1.0 driver revision:
0: uart:16550A port:000003F8 irq:0 tx:0 rx:5379 oe:7 RTS|DTR|DSR|CD
No matter what I do, tx bytes is stuck at 0. I've tried irq 0 (polling)
and irq 4. No difference at all.
Help...
Lee
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Serial issue
From: Wolfgang Denk @ 2006-07-26 21:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lee Revell; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <1153950324.2927.6.camel@mindpipe>
In message <1153950324.2927.6.camel@mindpipe> you wrote:
> I'm trying to connect to a Yosemite 440 PPC board using the serial
> console. I've tried everything in every Linux Serial FAQ and HOWTO but
> no matter what, I can receive but I cannot transmit.
Did you disable hardware flow control in your communication program?
Which communication program do you use, btw? I recommend C-kermit;
for details see also
http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/DULG/SystemSetup#Section_4.3.?stickboard=yosemite
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
How many seconds are there in a year? If I tell you there are 3.155 x
10^7, you won't even try to remember it. On the other hand, who could
forget that, to within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury.
- Tom Duff, Bell Labs
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Serial issue
From: Lee Revell @ 2006-07-26 22:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <1153950324.2927.6.camel@mindpipe>
On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 17:45 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> I'm trying to connect to a Yosemite 440 PPC board using the serial
> console. I've tried everything in every Linux Serial FAQ and HOWTO but
> no matter what, I can receive but I cannot transmit.
I've resolved the problem - unlike my reference system, with this host,
hardware flow control must be disabled for it to work.
Sorry for the noise.
Lee
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Add rtas_set_indicator_fast() for RTAS call without extended delay
From: Nathan Lynch @ 2006-07-26 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Haren Myneni; +Cc: Milton Miller II, Paul Mackerras, External List
In-Reply-To: <44C6F521.8040609@us.ibm.com>
Haren Myneni wrote:
> diff -Naurp 2618-rc2.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas.c 2618-rc2/arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas.c
> --- 2618-rc2.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas.c 2006-07-25 19:34:11.000000000 -0700
> +++ 2618-rc2/arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas.c 2006-07-25 19:33:16.000000000 -0700
> @@ -569,6 +569,27 @@ int rtas_set_indicator(int indicator, in
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(rtas_set_indicator);
>
> +/*
> + * Ignoring RTAS extended delay
> + */
> +int rtas_set_indicator_fast(int indicator, int index, int new_value)
> +{
> + int rc;
> + int token = rtas_token("set-indicator");
> +
> + if (token == RTAS_UNKNOWN_SERVICE)
> + return -ENOENT;
> +
> + rc = rtas_call(token, 3, 1, NULL, indicator, index, new_value);
> +
> + WARN_ON(rc == -2 || (rc >= 9900 && rc <= 9905));
> +
> + if (rc < 0)
> + return rtas_error_rc(rc);
> +
> + return rc;
> +}
> +
> void rtas_restart(char *cmd)
> {
> if (rtas_flash_term_hook)
> diff -Naurp 2618-rc2.orig/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c 2618-rc2/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c
> --- 2618-rc2.orig/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c 2006-07-25 19:34:41.000000000 -0700
> +++ 2618-rc2/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c 2006-07-25 19:33:36.000000000 -0700
> @@ -796,7 +796,7 @@ void xics_teardown_cpu(int secondary)
> * so leave the master cpu in the group.
> */
> if (secondary)
> - rtas_set_indicator(GLOBAL_INTERRUPT_QUEUE,
> + rtas_set_indicator_fast(GLOBAL_INTERRUPT_QUEUE,
> (1UL << interrupt_server_size) - 1 -
> default_distrib_server, 0);
> }
> @@ -813,7 +813,7 @@ void xics_migrate_irqs_away(void)
> xics_set_cpu_priority(cpu, 0);
>
> /* remove ourselves from the global interrupt queue */
> - status = rtas_set_indicator(GLOBAL_INTERRUPT_QUEUE,
> + status = rtas_set_indicator_fast(GLOBAL_INTERRUPT_QUEUE,
> (1UL << interrupt_server_size) - 1 - default_distrib_server, 0);
> WARN_ON(status < 0);
>
Looks fine to me from a quick look, but we need to use
rtas_set_indicator_fast in xics_setup_cpu as well (I think I neglected
to mention I saw the warning in the cpu up path, sorry).
^ permalink raw reply
* Can 750 user-mode binaries run on a 603e core?
From: Patrick J. Kelsey @ 2006-07-26 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-dev
SGksDQogDQpJZiBoYXZlIHVzZXItbW9kZSBiaW5hcmllcyBidWlsdCBmb3IgYSA3NTAgY29yZSwg
c2F5IHdpdGggZ2NjIC1tY3B1PTc1MCwgc2hvdWxkIEkgZXhwZWN0IHRoZW0gdG8gcnVuIG9uIGEg
NjAzZSBjb3JlPyAgV291bGQgSSBoYXZlIHRvIHdvcnJ5IGFib3V0IHVuc3VwcG9ydGVkIGluc3Ry
dWN0aW9ucyBvciBpbnN0cnVjdGlvbiBzY2hlZHVsaW5nIGlzc3Vlcz8NCiANCklmIHRoZXJlJ3Mg
YSBiZXR0ZXIgbGlzdCBmb3IgdGhpcyBxdWVzdGlvbiwgcGxlYXNlIGFkdmlzZS4NCiANClRoYW5r
cywNClBhdA0K
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Can 750 user-mode binaries run on a 603e core?
From: Kumar Gala @ 2006-07-27 0:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick J. Kelsey; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
In-Reply-To: <A958F7B12F59EC408E904A912CDE3DAE3D6A07@cvn68.fairmountautomation.com>
On Jul 26, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Patrick J. Kelsey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If have user-mode binaries built for a 750 core, say with gcc -
> mcpu=750, should I expect them to run on a 603e core? Would I have
> to worry about unsupported instructions or instruction scheduling
> issues?
>
> If there's a better list for this question, please advise.
Sure, there isn't different in the user space instruction sets
between the 750 and 603e core. The -mcpu is only tweaking
instruction scheduling and making it specific for the 750. The
instruction scheduling differences aren't that huge if memory serves
me correctly. The 750 probably takes fewer cycles on multiple and
divides. I forget if the 750 has any additional execution units that
the 603e didn't have (additional integer units, etc.).
- kumar
^ permalink raw reply
* RE: Can 750 user-mode binaries run on a 603e core?
From: Patrick J. Kelsey @ 2006-07-27 2:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-dev
In-Reply-To: <E7ECF775-1E54-4EE8-98DA-89FAD5C7C03A@kernel.crashing.org>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^ permalink raw reply
* RE: Can 750 user-mode binaries run on a 603e core?
From: Patrick J. Kelsey @ 2006-07-27 3:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-dev
In-Reply-To: <E7ECF775-1E54-4EE8-98DA-89FAD5C7C03A@kernel.crashing.org>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==
^ permalink raw reply
* RE: Can 750 user-mode binaries run on a 603e core?
From: Matt Sealey @ 2006-07-27 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Patrick J. Kelsey', linuxppc-dev
In-Reply-To: <A958F7B12F59EC408E904A912CDE3DAE3D6A0A@cvn68.fairmountautomation.com>
The 603/603e has 1 integer unit. The 604/604e and 7xx lines had
2.
Basically if you optimize for the 750 it may queue up integer
ops assuming there is room to execute them simultaneously, when
in fact there isn't.
But as kumar said, userspace is absolutely positively identical,
the chips from 603e to the latest G4 are entirely binary
compatible for integer and FPU code. Most people just optimize
for the 603e and let the CPU handle the rest.
--
Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com>
Manager, Genesi, Developer Relations
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linuxppc-dev-bounces+matt=genesi-usa.com@ozlabs.org
> [mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+matt=genesi-usa.com@ozlabs.org]
> On Behalf Of Patrick J. Kelsey
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:54 AM
> To: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> Subject: RE: Can 750 user-mode binaries run on a 603e core?
>
> (sorry about that last one. had a bit of trouble with a
> certain web based mail client...)
>
> Thanks for the reply, Kumar.
>
> That sounds encouraging. One of the things I was worried
> about with scheduling differences would be a differing number
> of branch delay slots between the two core versions. I'm
> still a bit new to the details of the PowerPC architecture,
> and at this point I'm not even sure if there are branch delay
> slots, although it does seem from my reading that the 603e
> and 750 pipelines are the same, in which case there would
> ceratinly be no worries here.
>
> At this point, I'm not concerned so much about an inefficient
> schedule resulting from running -mcpu=750 code on a 603e as
> long as the execution is correct.
>
> Pat
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> linuxppc-dev-bounces+kelseypj=fairmountautomation.com@ozlabs.o
> rg on behalf of Kumar Gala
> Sent: Wed 7/26/2006 8:04 PM
> To: Patrick J. Kelsey
> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: Can 750 user-mode binaries run on a 603e core?
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Patrick J. Kelsey wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > If have user-mode binaries built for a 750 core, say
> with gcc -
> > mcpu=750, should I expect them to run on a 603e core?
> Would I have
> > to worry about unsupported instructions or
> instruction scheduling
> > issues?
> >
> > If there's a better list for this question, please advise.
>
> Sure, there isn't different in the user space instruction sets
> between the 750 and 603e core. The -mcpu is only tweaking
> instruction scheduling and making it specific for the 750. The
> instruction scheduling differences aren't that huge if
> memory serves
> me correctly. The 750 probably takes fewer cycles on
> multiple and
> divides. I forget if the 750 has any additional
> execution units that
> the 603e didn't have (additional integer units, etc.).
>
> - kumar
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
>
^ permalink raw reply
* RE: Can 750 user-mode binaries run on a 603e core?
From: Patrick J. Kelsey @ 2006-07-27 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-dev
In-Reply-To: <002701c6b16f$af134640$99dfdfdf@bakuhatsu.net>
VGhhbmtzLCBNYXR0Lg0KIA0KRXZlcnl0aGluZyBJIHdhcyByZWFkaW5nIGFib3V0IGJpbmFyeSBj
b21wYXRpYmlsaXR5IHdhcyBvcmllbnRlZCBpbiB0aGUgJ3JlZ3VsYXInIGRpcmVjdGlvbiwgYXNz
dXJpbmcgbWUgdGhhdCA2MDNlIGJpbmFyaWVzIHdvdWxkIHJ1biBvbiB0aGUgNzUwIGp1c3QgZmlu
ZS4gIEknbSBnbGFkIHRvIGhlYXIgdGhhdCBpdCBydW5zIGluIHRoZSBvdGhlciBkaXJlY3Rpb24g
YWxzbyAoYXQgbGVhc3QgZm9yIGludGVnZXIgYW5kIEZQVSBjb2RlLCB3aGljaCBpcyBnb29kIGVu
b3VnaCBmb3IgbWUpLg0KIA0KUGF0DQoNCgktLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLSANCglG
cm9tOiBNYXR0IFNlYWxleSBbbWFpbHRvOm1hdHRAZ2VuZXNpLXVzYS5jb21dIA0KCVNlbnQ6IFRo
dSA3LzI3LzIwMDYgNzoyNyBBTSANCglUbzogUGF0cmljayBKLiBLZWxzZXk7IGxpbnV4cHBjLWRl
dkBvemxhYnMub3JnIA0KCUNjOiANCglTdWJqZWN0OiBSRTogQ2FuIDc1MCB1c2VyLW1vZGUgYmlu
YXJpZXMgcnVuIG9uIGEgNjAzZSBjb3JlPw0KCQ0KCQ0KDQoNCglUaGUgNjAzLzYwM2UgaGFzIDEg
aW50ZWdlciB1bml0LiBUaGUgNjA0LzYwNGUgYW5kIDd4eCBsaW5lcyBoYWQNCgkyLg0KCQ0KCUJh
c2ljYWxseSBpZiB5b3Ugb3B0aW1pemUgZm9yIHRoZSA3NTAgaXQgbWF5IHF1ZXVlIHVwIGludGVn
ZXINCglvcHMgYXNzdW1pbmcgdGhlcmUgaXMgcm9vbSB0byBleGVjdXRlIHRoZW0gc2ltdWx0YW5l
b3VzbHksIHdoZW4NCglpbiBmYWN0IHRoZXJlIGlzbid0Lg0KCQ0KCUJ1dCBhcyBrdW1hciBzYWlk
LCB1c2Vyc3BhY2UgaXMgYWJzb2x1dGVseSBwb3NpdGl2ZWx5IGlkZW50aWNhbCwNCgl0aGUgY2hp
cHMgZnJvbSA2MDNlIHRvIHRoZSBsYXRlc3QgRzQgYXJlIGVudGlyZWx5IGJpbmFyeQ0KCWNvbXBh
dGlibGUgZm9yIGludGVnZXIgYW5kIEZQVSBjb2RlLiBNb3N0IHBlb3BsZSBqdXN0IG9wdGltaXpl
DQoJZm9yIHRoZSA2MDNlIGFuZCBsZXQgdGhlIENQVSBoYW5kbGUgdGhlIHJlc3QuDQoJDQoJLS0N
CglNYXR0IFNlYWxleSA8bWF0dEBnZW5lc2ktdXNhLmNvbT4NCglNYW5hZ2VyLCBHZW5lc2ksIERl
dmVsb3BlciBSZWxhdGlvbnMNCgkNCgkNCgk+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQoJ
PiBGcm9tOiBsaW51eHBwYy1kZXYtYm91bmNlcyttYXR0PWdlbmVzaS11c2EuY29tQG96bGFicy5v
cmcNCgk+IFttYWlsdG86bGludXhwcGMtZGV2LWJvdW5jZXMrbWF0dD1nZW5lc2ktdXNhLmNvbUBv
emxhYnMub3JnXQ0KCT4gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIFBhdHJpY2sgSi4gS2Vsc2V5DQoJPiBTZW50OiBU
aHVyc2RheSwgSnVseSAyNywgMjAwNiA1OjU0IEFNDQoJPiBUbzogbGludXhwcGMtZGV2QG96bGFi
cy5vcmcNCgk+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJFOiBDYW4gNzUwIHVzZXItbW9kZSBiaW5hcmllcyBydW4gb24g
YSA2MDNlIGNvcmU/DQoJPg0KCT4gKHNvcnJ5IGFib3V0IHRoYXQgbGFzdCBvbmUuIGhhZCBhIGJp
dCBvZiB0cm91YmxlIHdpdGggYQ0KCT4gY2VydGFpbiB3ZWIgYmFzZWQgbWFpbCBjbGllbnQuLi4p
DQoJPiANCgk+IFRoYW5rcyBmb3IgdGhlIHJlcGx5LCBLdW1hci4NCgk+IA0KCT4gVGhhdCBzb3Vu
ZHMgZW5jb3VyYWdpbmcuICBPbmUgb2YgdGhlIHRoaW5ncyBJIHdhcyB3b3JyaWVkDQoJPiBhYm91
dCB3aXRoIHNjaGVkdWxpbmcgZGlmZmVyZW5jZXMgd291bGQgYmUgYSBkaWZmZXJpbmcgbnVtYmVy
DQoJPiBvZiBicmFuY2ggZGVsYXkgc2xvdHMgYmV0d2VlbiB0aGUgdHdvIGNvcmUgdmVyc2lvbnMu
ICBJJ20NCgk+IHN0aWxsIGEgYml0IG5ldyB0byB0aGUgZGV0YWlscyBvZiB0aGUgUG93ZXJQQyBh
cmNoaXRlY3R1cmUsDQoJPiBhbmQgYXQgdGhpcyBwb2ludCBJJ20gbm90IGV2ZW4gc3VyZSBpZiB0
aGVyZSBhcmUgYnJhbmNoIGRlbGF5DQoJPiBzbG90cywgYWx0aG91Z2ggaXQgZG9lcyBzZWVtIGZy
b20gbXkgcmVhZGluZyB0aGF0IHRoZSA2MDNlDQoJPiBhbmQgNzUwIHBpcGVsaW5lcyBhcmUgdGhl
IHNhbWUsIGluIHdoaWNoIGNhc2UgdGhlcmUgd291bGQNCgk+IGNlcmF0aW5seSBiZSBubyB3b3Jy
aWVzIGhlcmUuDQoJPiANCgk+IEF0IHRoaXMgcG9pbnQsIEknbSBub3QgY29uY2VybmVkIHNvIG11
Y2ggYWJvdXQgYW4gaW5lZmZpY2llbnQNCgk+IHNjaGVkdWxlIHJlc3VsdGluZyBmcm9tIHJ1bm5p
bmcgLW1jcHU9NzUwIGNvZGUgb24gYSA2MDNlIGFzDQoJPiBsb25nIGFzIHRoZSBleGVjdXRpb24g
aXMgY29ycmVjdC4NCgk+IA0KCT4gUGF0DQoJPiANCgk+DQoJPiAgICAgICAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFs
IE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KCT4gICAgICAgRnJvbToNCgk+IGxpbnV4cHBjLWRldi1ib3VuY2VzK2tl
bHNleXBqPWZhaXJtb3VudGF1dG9tYXRpb24uY29tQG96bGFicy5vDQoJPiByZyBvbiBiZWhhbGYg
b2YgS3VtYXIgR2FsYQ0KCT4gICAgICAgU2VudDogV2VkIDcvMjYvMjAwNiA4OjA0IFBNDQoJPiAg
ICAgICBUbzogUGF0cmljayBKLiBLZWxzZXkNCgk+ICAgICAgIENjOiBsaW51eHBwYy1kZXZAb3ps
YWJzLm9yZw0KCT4gICAgICAgU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IENhbiA3NTAgdXNlci1tb2RlIGJpbmFyaWVz
IHJ1biBvbiBhIDYwM2UgY29yZT8NCgk+ICAgICAgDQoJPiAgICAgIA0KCT4NCgk+DQoJPiAgICAg
ICBPbiBKdWwgMjYsIDIwMDYsIGF0IDU6MjcgUE0sIFBhdHJpY2sgSi4gS2Vsc2V5IHdyb3RlOg0K
CT4gICAgICANCgk+ICAgICAgID4gSGksDQoJPiAgICAgICA+DQoJPiAgICAgICA+IElmIGhhdmUg
dXNlci1tb2RlIGJpbmFyaWVzIGJ1aWx0IGZvciBhIDc1MCBjb3JlLCBzYXkNCgk+IHdpdGggZ2Nj
IC0NCgk+ICAgICAgID4gbWNwdT03NTAsIHNob3VsZCBJIGV4cGVjdCB0aGVtIHRvIHJ1biBvbiBh
IDYwM2UgY29yZT8NCgk+ICBXb3VsZCBJIGhhdmUNCgk+ICAgICAgID4gdG8gd29ycnkgYWJvdXQg
dW5zdXBwb3J0ZWQgaW5zdHJ1Y3Rpb25zIG9yDQoJPiBpbnN0cnVjdGlvbiBzY2hlZHVsaW5nDQoJ
PiAgICAgICA+IGlzc3Vlcz8NCgk+ICAgICAgID4NCgk+ICAgICAgID4gSWYgdGhlcmUncyBhIGJl
dHRlciBsaXN0IGZvciB0aGlzIHF1ZXN0aW9uLCBwbGVhc2UgYWR2aXNlLg0KCT4gICAgICANCgk+
ICAgICAgIFN1cmUsIHRoZXJlIGlzbid0IGRpZmZlcmVudCBpbiB0aGUgdXNlciBzcGFjZSBpbnN0
cnVjdGlvbiBzZXRzDQoJPiAgICAgICBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZSA3NTAgYW5kIDYwM2UgY29yZS4gIFRo
ZSAtbWNwdSBpcyBvbmx5IHR3ZWFraW5nDQoJPiAgICAgICBpbnN0cnVjdGlvbiBzY2hlZHVsaW5n
IGFuZCBtYWtpbmcgaXQgc3BlY2lmaWMgZm9yIHRoZSA3NTAuICBUaGUNCgk+ICAgICAgIGluc3Ry
dWN0aW9uIHNjaGVkdWxpbmcgZGlmZmVyZW5jZXMgYXJlbid0IHRoYXQgaHVnZSBpZg0KCT4gbWVt
b3J5IHNlcnZlcw0KCT4gICAgICAgbWUgY29ycmVjdGx5LiAgVGhlIDc1MCBwcm9iYWJseSB0YWtl
cyBmZXdlciBjeWNsZXMgb24NCgk+IG11bHRpcGxlIGFuZA0KCT4gICAgICAgZGl2aWRlcy4gIEkg
Zm9yZ2V0IGlmIHRoZSA3NTAgaGFzIGFueSBhZGRpdGlvbmFsDQoJPiBleGVjdXRpb24gdW5pdHMg
dGhhdA0KCT4gICAgICAgdGhlIDYwM2UgZGlkbid0IGhhdmUgKGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgaW50ZWdlciB1
bml0cywgZXRjLikuDQoJPiAgICAgIA0KCT4gICAgICAgLSBrdW1hcg0KCT4gICAgICAgX19fX19f
X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCgk+ICAgICAgIExpbnV4
cHBjLWRldiBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCgk+ICAgICAgIExpbnV4cHBjLWRldkBvemxhYnMub3JnDQoJ
PiAgICAgICBodHRwczovL296bGFicy5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9saW51eHBwYy1kZXYN
Cgk+ICAgICAgDQoJPg0KCT4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f
X19fX19fX18NCgk+IExpbnV4cHBjLWRldiBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCgk+IExpbnV4cHBjLWRldkBv
emxhYnMub3JnDQoJPiBodHRwczovL296bGFicy5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9saW51eHBw
Yy1kZXYNCgk+DQoJDQoJDQoNCg==
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Can 750 user-mode binaries run on a 603e core?
From: Jerry Van Baren @ 2006-07-27 12:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick J. Kelsey; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
In-Reply-To: <A958F7B12F59EC408E904A912CDE3DAE3D6A0A@cvn68.fairmountautomation.com>
Patrick J. Kelsey wrote:
> (sorry about that last one. had a bit of trouble with a certain web based mail client...)
>
> Thanks for the reply, Kumar.
>
> That sounds encouraging. One of the things I was worried about with
> scheduling differences would be a differing number of branch delay
> slots between the two core versions. I'm still a bit new to the
> details of the PowerPC architecture, and at this point I'm not even
> sure if there are branch delay slots, although it does seem from my
> reading that the 603e and 750 pipelines are the same, in which case
> there would ceratinly be no worries here.
FWIIW, the PowerPC architecture has hardware instruction interlocking
and scheduling and doesn't require the compiler to implement the branch
delay slots like, for instance, the MIPS architecture. This is much
more compiler and portability friendly, but at the expense of more logic
in the processor (the PowerPC is not nearly as minimalistic as the MIPS).
> At this point, I'm not concerned so much about an inefficient
> schedule resulting from running -mcpu=750 code on a 603e as long as
> the execution is correct.
>
> Pat
gvb
^ permalink raw reply
* Where to store the Linux kernel.
From: Ming Liu @ 2006-07-27 12:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-embedded
Hello everyone,
Now I am doing a embedded linux project on the board of ML403(virtex4,
ppc405). In my product, I cannot use CF card. So I have to use flash memory
to store the Linux kernel. Except for the Linux kernel, also I have to
store the hardware information of the system.bit file. I know in ml403
board, there are two types of flash. One is Platform Flash and the other is
Linear Flash. Can anyone tell me how can I arrange my hardware .bit file
and Linux kernel zImage.elf file and store them in the flash provided in
the board? Can I put both of them in the Platform Flash chip? Thanks for
the telling.
Regards
Ming
_________________________________________________________________
与联机的朋友进行交流，请使用 MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com/cn
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Can 750 user-mode binaries run on a 603e core?
From: Andy Fleming @ 2006-07-27 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jerry Van Baren; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, Patrick J. Kelsey
In-Reply-To: <44C8B330.7030600@smiths-aerospace.com>
Branch delay slots are evil, and PowerPC did not use them.
'nuff said.
Pretty much any powerpc binary should work on any PowerPC system.
Actually, we use a 603-compiled root file system for our e500
processors (in our lab), and don't run into any problems. This is
On Jul 27, 2006, at 07:36, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
> Patrick J. Kelsey wrote:
>> (sorry about that last one. had a bit of trouble with a certain
>> web based mail client...)
>>
>> Thanks for the reply, Kumar.
>>
>> That sounds encouraging. One of the things I was worried about with
>> scheduling differences would be a differing number of branch delay
>> slots between the two core versions. I'm still a bit new to the
>> details of the PowerPC architecture, and at this point I'm not even
>> sure if there are branch delay slots, although it does seem from my
>> reading that the 603e and 750 pipelines are the same, in which case
>> there would ceratinly be no worries here.
>
> FWIIW, the PowerPC architecture has hardware instruction interlocking
> and scheduling and doesn't require the compiler to implement the
> branch
> delay slots like, for instance, the MIPS architecture. This is much
> more compiler and portability friendly, but at the expense of more
> logic
> in the processor (the PowerPC is not nearly as minimalistic as the
> MIPS).
>
>> At this point, I'm not concerned so much about an inefficient
>> schedule resulting from running -mcpu=750 code on a 603e as long as
>> the execution is correct.
>>
>> Pat
>
> gvb
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
^ permalink raw reply
page: next (older) | prev (newer) | latest
- recent:[subjects (threaded)|topics (new)|topics (active)]
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox