RE: [microblaze-uclinux] PetaLinux 0.20, including 2.6.20 kernel

["Leonid" <Leonid@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, John:

On Friday, June 15, 2007 1:31 AM John Williams wrote:

> > [Leonid] This is way to go, but it assumes modifying of Xilinx
sources
> > which make their upgrade more difficult in future unless Xilinx will
> > embrace the same approach.

> There's no future in kernel.org for the Xilinx drivers (_l, _g etc).
> The only way drivers will make it to kernel.org is if they are
rewritten
> in correct kernel style, as has happed for the uartlite and recently
> system ace driver.

[Leonid] All Xilinx files must be rewritten or only such "external"
wrappers, containing the definitions in question?

> > If I am right, the "rubbish" under consideration still needs to be
> > standardized somehow - CONFIG_XILINX_... or XPAR_...

> Well, currently the PPC folks have a fairly yucky
> xparameters_boardname.h file, that maps the XPAR names onto standard,
> but still XPAR_ prefixed names.

[Leonid] Yes, that what I noticed myself.

> Since it's isolated inside arch/ppc, and microblaze inside
> arch/microblaze, it really isn't that much of an issue.

[Leonid] And how are you going to deal with same IP cores for different
architectures? Say, I have GPIO core and driver is the same no matter
where I use the core - in Spartan with Microblaze or in Virtex with
PPC405. Do you suggest to have independent copy (well, not exactly
"copy" - they will differ a little bit) of the same driver for each
architecture?

> > [Leonid] I take it that for PPC405 some cores (like TMAC) are not
> > supported there, right? Or you included Grant Likely's patches?

> We don't have any TEMAC support in there yet, I'm not sure there is a
> mature (or even core-complete) driver for it for 2.6 yet.

[Leonid] I cannot say for maturity but there are certainly drivers on
the place and I personally use one (based on Xilinx low level code and
adapter.c from Rick Moleres of Xilinx).

> > Also, do you have any "unified" file system suggestions?

> Not quite sure what you mean there?

[Leonid] Building kernel is only part of creating working image, you
need root file system as well. You want have it in the form it can be
easily upgraded as new versions of particular packages are issued,
etc... This is sometimes tricky since not all packets are good for cross
compilation. In uClinux case you have everything in source; for other
architectures people use different approaches (like ad-hoc FS with
binaries and partially sources or set of RPMS, etc...). I just wanted to
learn your opinion regarding this problem.

Regards,

Leonid.

___________________________
microblaze-uclinux mailing list
microblaze-uclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Project Home Page : http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~jwilliams/mblaze-uclinux
Mailing List Archive : http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~listarch/microblaze-uclinux/