kernel versions

kernel versions

[Tobin C. Harding]

Recently the kernel version on the github
repository did not match up with the master branch of

https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/powerpc/linux

Specifically, github was hosting v4.10-rc5 while master had
v4.10-rc8. All the while Linus' mainline was at v4.11-rc1.

Was this an anomaly or is there a technical reason please? While
writing this I see that perhaps I should have checked the other
branches (fixes, next, test).

thanks,
Tobin.

Re: kernel versions

[Daniel Axtens]

Hi Tobin,

> Recently the kernel version on the github
> repository did not match up with the master branch of
>
> https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/powerpc/linux
>
> Specifically, github was hosting v4.10-rc5 while master had
> v4.10-rc8. All the while Linus' mainline was at v4.11-rc1.
>
> Was this an anomaly or is there a technical reason please? While
> writing this I see that perhaps I should have checked the other
> branches (fixes, next, test).

These are all managed by different people, and none of them are managed
by any of the linuxppc-dev folk.

Sorry I can't be more helpful.

Regards,
Daniel

>
> thanks,
> Tobin.

Re: kernel versions

[Gary Thomas]

On 02/21/2011 04:16 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 11:31 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
>> On 02/21/2011 10:41 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 08:52 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
>>>> I have my own kernel recipes (historical reasons...) which I
>>>> now have 2 versions of.  Some platforms have not yet been
>>>> ported to the latest version and I need to keep using the
>>>> older one for those platforms until the porting is complete.
>>>>
>>>> Sadly, I can't get this to work.
>>>>
>>>> Here's what I have
>>>>      $ tree meta-amltd/packages/linux/
>>>>        meta-amltd/packages/linux/
>>>>        ├── linux-am_2.6.32.bb
>>>>        ├── linux-am_2.6.37.bb
>>>>
>>>>      $ tree meta-cobra3530p60/packages/linux/
>>>>        meta-cobra3530p60/packages/linux/
>>>>        ├── linux-am-2.6.32
>>>>        │   └── cobra3530p60
>>>>        │       ├── cobra3530p60.patch
>>>>        │       └── defconfig
>>>>        ├── linux-am_2.6.32.bbappend
>>>>
>>>> I tried these settings in my machine/cobra3530p60
>>>>      PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-am"
>>>>      PREFERRED_VERSION_virtual/kernel = "2.6.32"
>>>>
>>>> However, it still wants to build version 2.6.37
>>>>
>>>> What am I missing?  How can I force it to use the 2.6.32 version
>>>> for this machine?
>>>
>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-am = "2.6.32"
>>
>> That does seem to work, but only if I put it in the<MACHINE>.conf
>> file, not local.conf.
>>
>> Why specify it one way (PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel) for the provider
>> (recipe basis) and then a different way (PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-am) for
>> the actual version?
>
> Each recipe has a list of things it provides. This is usually PN but in
> the kernel case each recipe provides "virtual/kernel" so we can group
> them and make a selection with PREFERRED_PROVIDER.
>
> Bitbake first determines the provider. Once it has this it looks up the
> version. It looks this up using PN and not using what could be an
> arbitrary list of items in PROVIDES.
>
> Summary, you always use PN with PREFERRED_VERSION as that is what makes
> sense in the general case.

Understood.  Thanks for the explanation.

> It should however work to put this in local.conf unless you're setting
> it with an = and not a ?= somewhere else?

I'm not sure what happened there - this was the real crux of my question
as earlier I had tried an override with PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-am in
local.conf and it ignored me.  I can't duplicate that problem now.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------

Re: kernel versions

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 11:31 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 02/21/2011 10:41 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 08:52 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
> >> I have my own kernel recipes (historical reasons...) which I
> >> now have 2 versions of.  Some platforms have not yet been
> >> ported to the latest version and I need to keep using the
> >> older one for those platforms until the porting is complete.
> >>
> >> Sadly, I can't get this to work.
> >>
> >> Here's what I have
> >>     $ tree meta-amltd/packages/linux/
> >>       meta-amltd/packages/linux/
> >>       ├── linux-am_2.6.32.bb
> >>       ├── linux-am_2.6.37.bb
> >>
> >>     $ tree meta-cobra3530p60/packages/linux/
> >>       meta-cobra3530p60/packages/linux/
> >>       ├── linux-am-2.6.32
> >>       │   └── cobra3530p60
> >>       │       ├── cobra3530p60.patch
> >>       │       └── defconfig
> >>       ├── linux-am_2.6.32.bbappend
> >>
> >> I tried these settings in my machine/cobra3530p60
> >>     PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-am"
> >>     PREFERRED_VERSION_virtual/kernel = "2.6.32"
> >>
> >> However, it still wants to build version 2.6.37
> >>
> >> What am I missing?  How can I force it to use the 2.6.32 version
> >> for this machine?
> >
> > PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-am = "2.6.32"
> 
> That does seem to work, but only if I put it in the <MACHINE>.conf
> file, not local.conf.
> 
> Why specify it one way (PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel) for the provider
> (recipe basis) and then a different way (PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-am) for
> the actual version?

Each recipe has a list of things it provides. This is usually PN but in
the kernel case each recipe provides "virtual/kernel" so we can group
them and make a selection with PREFERRED_PROVIDER.

Bitbake first determines the provider. Once it has this it looks up the
version. It looks this up using PN and not using what could be an
arbitrary list of items in PROVIDES.

Summary, you always use PN with PREFERRED_VERSION as that is what makes
sense in the general case.

It should however work to put this in local.conf unless you're setting
it with an = and not a ?= somewhere else?

Cheers,

Richard

Re: kernel versions

[Gary Thomas]

On 02/21/2011 10:41 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 08:52 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
>> I have my own kernel recipes (historical reasons...) which I
>> now have 2 versions of.  Some platforms have not yet been
>> ported to the latest version and I need to keep using the
>> older one for those platforms until the porting is complete.
>>
>> Sadly, I can't get this to work.
>>
>> Here's what I have
>>     $ tree meta-amltd/packages/linux/
>>       meta-amltd/packages/linux/
>>       ├── linux-am_2.6.32.bb
>>       ├── linux-am_2.6.37.bb
>>
>>     $ tree meta-cobra3530p60/packages/linux/
>>       meta-cobra3530p60/packages/linux/
>>       ├── linux-am-2.6.32
>>       │   └── cobra3530p60
>>       │       ├── cobra3530p60.patch
>>       │       └── defconfig
>>       ├── linux-am_2.6.32.bbappend
>>
>> I tried these settings in my machine/cobra3530p60
>>     PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-am"
>>     PREFERRED_VERSION_virtual/kernel = "2.6.32"
>>
>> However, it still wants to build version 2.6.37
>>
>> What am I missing?  How can I force it to use the 2.6.32 version
>> for this machine?
>
> PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-am = "2.6.32"

That does seem to work, but only if I put it in the <MACHINE>.conf
file, not local.conf.

Why specify it one way (PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel) for the provider
(recipe basis) and then a different way (PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-am) for
the actual version?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------

Re: kernel versions

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 08:52 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
> I have my own kernel recipes (historical reasons...) which I
> now have 2 versions of.  Some platforms have not yet been
> ported to the latest version and I need to keep using the
> older one for those platforms until the porting is complete.
> 
> Sadly, I can't get this to work.
> 
> Here's what I have
>    $ tree meta-amltd/packages/linux/
>      meta-amltd/packages/linux/
>      ├── linux-am_2.6.32.bb
>      ├── linux-am_2.6.37.bb
> 
>    $ tree meta-cobra3530p60/packages/linux/
>      meta-cobra3530p60/packages/linux/
>      ├── linux-am-2.6.32
>      │   └── cobra3530p60
>      │       ├── cobra3530p60.patch
>      │       └── defconfig
>      ├── linux-am_2.6.32.bbappend
> 
> I tried these settings in my machine/cobra3530p60
>    PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-am"
>    PREFERRED_VERSION_virtual/kernel = "2.6.32"
> 
> However, it still wants to build version 2.6.37
> 
> What am I missing?  How can I force it to use the 2.6.32 version
> for this machine?

PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-am = "2.6.32"

?

Cheers,

Richard

Re: kernel versions

[Gary Thomas]

On 02/21/2011 08:52 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
> I have my own kernel recipes (historical reasons...) which I
> now have 2 versions of. Some platforms have not yet been
> ported to the latest version and I need to keep using the
> older one for those platforms until the porting is complete.
>
> Sadly, I can't get this to work.
>
> Here's what I have
> $ tree meta-amltd/packages/linux/
> meta-amltd/packages/linux/
> ├── linux-am_2.6.32.bb
> ├── linux-am_2.6.37.bb

For clarity, this is my distribution which is layered on Poky

> $ tree meta-cobra3530p60/packages/linux/
> meta-cobra3530p60/packages/linux/
> ├── linux-am-2.6.32
> │ └── cobra3530p60
> │ ├── cobra3530p60.patch
> │ └── defconfig
> ├── linux-am_2.6.32.bbappend

This is one of my platform/machine layers

>
> I tried these settings in my machine/cobra3530p60
> PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-am"
> PREFERRED_VERSION_virtual/kernel = "2.6.32"
>
> However, it still wants to build version 2.6.37
>
> What am I missing? How can I force it to use the 2.6.32 version
> for this machine?
>
> Thanks
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------

kernel versions

[Gary Thomas]

I have my own kernel recipes (historical reasons...) which I
now have 2 versions of.  Some platforms have not yet been
ported to the latest version and I need to keep using the
older one for those platforms until the porting is complete.

Sadly, I can't get this to work.

Here's what I have
   $ tree meta-amltd/packages/linux/
     meta-amltd/packages/linux/
     ├── linux-am_2.6.32.bb
     ├── linux-am_2.6.37.bb

   $ tree meta-cobra3530p60/packages/linux/
     meta-cobra3530p60/packages/linux/
     ├── linux-am-2.6.32
     │   └── cobra3530p60
     │       ├── cobra3530p60.patch
     │       └── defconfig
     ├── linux-am_2.6.32.bbappend

I tried these settings in my machine/cobra3530p60
   PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-am"
   PREFERRED_VERSION_virtual/kernel = "2.6.32"

However, it still wants to build version 2.6.37

What am I missing?  How can I force it to use the 2.6.32 version
for this machine?

Thanks

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Kernel versions

[Tomasz Chmielewski]

> I have noticed that when compiling various kernel versions with same
> .config file
> (this is .config file from generic 2.6.27-7 kernel that works)
> on same machine the results are unpredictable :) Sometimes machine just
> shuts down during the compilation

Shuts down during compilation? Or freezes?

It mostly means hardware problems.


> and in most cases it won't boot.

And what does kernel say during booting and where it breaks / stop booting?


-- 
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org

Kernel versions

[Dragoslav Zaric]

Hello,

I have noticed that when compiling various kernel versions with same
.config file
(this is .config file from generic 2.6.27-7 kernel that works)
on same machine the results are unpredictable :) Sometimes machine just
shuts down during the compilation, and in most cases it won't boot. I am always
downloading kernel sources from official site and I think these are
stable versions.
For example, 2.6.27.7 , 2.6.27.21 etc.

I am compiling kernel and modules with:

make
make modules
make modules_install
make install

and then run in /boot folder

mkinitrd initrd.img-2.6.27.21 2.6.27.21

and modify /boot/grub/menu.lst

So, is there some convention or practice, to know which versions are
stable or do
different distribution have something to do with it ?

thanks,

Dragoslav Zaric
[Professional programmer, MSc in Astrophysics]

Re: Kernel versions

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 10:08 -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 10:56, Gary Thomas wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 08:54, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > > In message <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407021623360.22661@denise.shiny.it> you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The official 2.6.7 kernel works just fine on ppc machines.
> > >
> > > Please define "ppc machines". It doesn't work on most of the  systems
> > > we have in the lab (like MPC8xx or MPC5200 etc.)

There was a fair amount of MPC5200 code merged recently. MPC8xx
apparently isn't far off working either.

> > Indeed.  Not all "PPC machines" are Apple MacIntosh systems, although
> > Macs do use the PowerPC CPU.  Too many folks simply equate the two...

Amongst the "PPC machines" on which I have 2.6 running are mpc8265,
mpc8560 and a dual 745x machine with MV64360 chipset -- although the
latter isn't merged into Linus' tree yet.

It's not _just_ working on macs.

> I tend to think that pretty much everything including fancy board
> support should be sent to lkml for comment & proposed upstream right
> away.

Works for me.

--
dwmw2


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Kernel versions

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 10:56, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 08:54, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > In message <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407021623360.22661@denise.shiny.it> you wrote:
> > >
> > > The official 2.6.7 kernel works just fine on ppc machines.
> >
> > Please define "ppc machines". It doesn't work on most of the  systems
> > we have in the lab (like MPC8xx or MPC5200 etc.)
>
> Indeed.  Not all "PPC machines" are Apple MacIntosh systems, although
> Macs do use the PowerPC CPU.  Too many folks simply equate the two...

Then send patches upstream. It's plain wrong to reproduce what we
had in 2.4 letting all sort of stuffs pile up in the "ppc" trees
that never get sent upstream.

I tend to think that pretty much everything including fancy board
support should be sent to lkml for comment & proposed upstream right
away.

Ben.


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Kernel versions

[Gary Thomas]

On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 08:54, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407021623360.22661@denise.shiny.it> you wrote:
> >
> > The official 2.6.7 kernel works just fine on ppc machines.
>
> Please define "ppc machines". It doesn't work on most of the  systems
> we have in the lab (like MPC8xx or MPC5200 etc.)

Indeed.  Not all "PPC machines" are Apple MacIntosh systems, although
Macs do use the PowerPC CPU.  Too many folks simply equate the two...

--
Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>
MLB Associates


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Kernel versions

[Giuliano Pochini]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

> > The official 2.6.7 kernel works just fine on ppc machines.
>
> Please define "ppc machines". It doesn't work on most of the  systems
> we have in the lab (like MPC8xx or MPC5200 etc.)

The question was: "Is there a linuxppc-2.6 kernel tree or are they
still using the linuxppc-2.5 tree?".  "They" isn't a good definition
of what machines (or people ?) he was referring to.  I guessed he
meant the majority of ppc machines.


--
Giuliano.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Kernel versions

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407021623360.22661@denise.shiny.it> you wrote:
>
> The official 2.6.7 kernel works just fine on ppc machines.

Please define "ppc machines". It doesn't work on most of the  systems
we have in the lab (like MPC8xx or MPC5200 etc.)

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

--
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd@denx.de
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a  correct
one.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Kernel versions

[Giuliano Pochini]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, linuxppc wrote:

> Is there a linuxppc-2.6 kernel tree or are they still using the
> linuxppc-2.5 tree?

The official 2.6.7 kernel works just fine on ppc machines.


--
Giuliano.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Kernel versions

[linuxppc]

Is there a linuxppc-2.6 kernel tree or are they still using the linuxppc-2.5
tree?

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Kernel versions

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:36:11PM -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:

> Tom,
>
> For more than a year now, I've been working from the linuxppc_2_4_devel
> tree, sending updates which have been merged in, etc.  I just looked at
> the recently discussed 2.4 tree (http://ppc.bkbits.net:8080/linuxppc-2.4)
> and I see none of this work present.
>
> So my questions are:
> * What is the "proper" tree to be working from (2.4, 2.6)?
> * What is the merge path from the work in 2_4_devel to these other trees?

For 2.6, a tree based off of Linus' BK (or CVS or SVN or tarball of
that) or current 2.6 release.  For 2.4, it depends on the type of board:
8xx: Should be mostly merged into kernel.org now, but if you need
something, pull it up and out separately.
'classic' mpc10x based: All of the library type bits of code
(mpc10x_common, gen550) are in kernel.org, so it should be trivial to
pull a platform out of _devel
gt64260 (and gt64360): At OLS Paul talked to Mark about what needs to
bee done to make him happy with the code and Mark has expressed a desire
to do some (other?) cleanups as well to the 64260 code, which should
take into account the 64360 when possible.
'other' classic: Most likely needs someone with the hardware to state
that it's still working.
8260: Needs things to be pulled up and out of 2_4_devel.

And by 'pull it up and out' I mean to make another patch / ChangeSet of
just those changes (or many, if there's many difference pieces to it)
that would go in before the patch for a given board.

Now, since 2.4 (2_4_devel, even) and 2.6 are not in sync for some code
(gt64260) and not all platforms work in 2.6 (8xx, 8260 is in almost
working shape again) it might not be an equal amount of work needed to
get something into 2.4 and 2.6, but it would be appreciated if patches
come in at roughly the same time for both (or 2.6 first, even).

The linuxppc-2.4 tree contains what's gone to Marcelo already, along
with some things that are being polished up.  At the moment, I don't
think there's anything special there, but I haven't looked.

> ... I wouldn't want all of my efforts to just get lost.

It won't be.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Kernel versions

[Gary Thomas]

Tom,

For more than a year now, I've been working from the linuxppc_2_4_devel
tree, sending updates which have been merged in, etc.  I just looked at
the recently discussed 2.4 tree (http://ppc.bkbits.net:8080/linuxppc-2.4)
and I see none of this work present.

So my questions are:
* What is the "proper" tree to be working from (2.4, 2.6)?
* What is the merge path from the work in 2_4_devel to these other trees?

... I wouldn't want all of my efforts to just get lost.

Thanks.

--
Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>
MLB Associates


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/