From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Geert Uytterhoeven Subject: Re: bogl: don't know screen type 1 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:25:45 +0200 Message-ID: <10f740e80909111325s62c90736p181fd349b48fccc8@mail.gmail.com> References: <8259f0250908302028n9b0cb56td402539007736fce@mail.gmail.com> <20090831120617.GA1114@marenka.net> <8259f0250908310558l3ddd5fam7d15946a7c1e8572@mail.gmail.com> <8259f0250908311511h77270544vb2dc3dd383f1add8@mail.gmail.com> <8259f0250908311516r49e54c7fi44ead0f040cade30@mail.gmail.com> <20090901151747.GB27514@marenka.net> <8259f0250909021816g2b6a37dfs9bd91c4cabaf457a@mail.gmail.com> <8259f0250909021822k70b1a152sce6ecc651334800@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-pz0-f184.google.com ([209.85.222.184]:37588 "EHLO mail-pz0-f184.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751201AbZIKUZo convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:25:44 -0400 Received: by pzk14 with SMTP id 14so1157380pzk.1 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:25:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Kolbj=C3=B8rn_Barmen?= Cc: mike , Linux/m68k , debian-68k@lists.debian.org 2009/9/11 Kolbj=C3=B8rn Barmen : > On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, mike wrote: >> I tried to boot 2.6.29 or whatever... It was so slow compared to 2.4= i >> donno what to say, except its crap. Not a surprise if gcc produces >> crappier and crappier 68k binaries anyway. Why the hell isnt freesca= le >> on top of this? Fuck damn they should be on top of this and the 6805= 0/70 >> the natami is trying out, and bloody include talent like Carl S and = Dave >> H that know what the heck the 68k, electronics, and the amiga is >> about.... > > For what it's worth - my m68k systems runs current linux kernel, 2.6.= 30, > compiled with gcc 4.2.4 just fine, and I have not see any slow-down, = apart > from obvious things in bootup, like initiating udev, creating nodes a= nd > similar things that have nothing to do with kernel itself. I also mak= e > sure to compile my kernels with only the modules that makes sense for= the > hardware I run it on. > > My systems are one A1200 with Blizzard 1230III (030+882@50MHz) and 32= MB > RAM, one A1200 with Blizzard 1260 (060@50MHz) and 64MB RAM, and one M= ac > Quadra 910 (040@25MHz) with 64MB RAM. Oh and my build box, Aranym wit= h a > 040@100-180MHz depending on host at bootup, and for the time being, 2= 56MB > RAM (allthough, it is down ATM, fixing filesystem disaster after I so= mehow > managed to launch aranym twice on same disk image :P) [...] > So, in the end, I'm not so sure that what you complain about is for r= eal. 2.6.x is noticable slower than 2.4.x, due to increasing RAM requirement= s. Probably you don't notice it that much as even your least machine has 3= 2 MiB of RAM. I do, as my A4000/040 has only 12 MiB of Fast RAM. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-= m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker= =2E But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something li= ke that. -- Linus Torvalds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html