Re: [Adeos-main] AT91SAM9261 adeos support for 2.6.19 kernel

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@domain.hid>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3480 bytes --]

Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> 2007/4/11, Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org>:
>> Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>>> 2007/4/10, Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org>:
>>>
>>>> Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> We port the adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-arm-1.6-05.patch for AT91SAM9261.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch must be applied on vanilla 2.6.19 with at91 patch (
>>>>> http://maxim.org.za/AT91RM9200/2.6/2.6.19-at91.patch.gz ) applied for
>>>>> supporting AT91SAM9261.
>>>>> So first get vanilla kernel, then apply at91 patch then apply our
>>>>> patch instead of adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-arm-1.6-05.patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> For now it works with Xenomai on AT91SAM9261-EK, if someone is
>>>>> intersting we can send the benchmark result.
>>>>> As AT91SAM926x are pretty similar of AT91RM9200, there is a some
>>>>> duplicate code and some common code.
>>>>> In the future it could be also work on all AT91SAM926x, we can test
>>>>> it. But before going ahead we would like some comment on this patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> The better would be working on 2.6.20 which already have support for
>>>>> AT91SAM926x, but we didn't see any arm patch on this kernel nor any
>>>>> file modified on git.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope this patch will be usefull.
>>>> It looks good. I will try and port the I-pipe patch for ARM to Linux
>>>> 2.6.20. In the meantime, could you separate the AT91SAM9261 specific
>>>> code and the changes (if any) made to the rest of the I-pipe from the
>>>> rest of the I-pipe ? This would ease distribution and maintenance.
>>>
>>> OK I made a diff between our patch and
>>> adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-arm-1.6-05.patch. I had to reworked our patch for
>>> removing fake difference.
>>> As you will see there is not many difference between the 2 patchs and
>>> we don't modify the rest of I-pipe.
>>> There is also difference due to the fact that we made our patch on a
>>> kernel patched with at91 whereas adeos patch was made on vanilla
>>> kernel.
>>>
>>> As this diff file isn't really readeable, I can say that the main file
>>> we modified are:
>>> * arch/arm/mach-at91rm9200/Kconfig
>>> -> here we add support for AT91SAM9261
>>>
>>> * arch/arm/mach-at91rm9200/at91sam9261.c
>>> -> here we add support for TCB0 and modify interrupt priority in the
>>> same way of AT91RM9200
>>>
>>> * arch/arm/mach-at91rm9200/at91sam926x_time.c
>>> -> and here we add the same code that was in
>>> arch/arm/mach-at91rm9200/at91rm9200_time.c. As it is exactly the same
>>> code added as we use the same peripheral, maybe we can add a common
>>> file ( an at91_ipipe_time.c), instead of having duplicated code.
>> Sorry, I did not make myself clear, I would like a difference between
>> the trees, not between the diffs. In other words, the modifications you
>> made.
> 
> Well this differences show the modification we made, but I agree it is
> not really readable.
> 
> Between which tree do you want the diffs ?
> Vanilla kernel +adeos patch  and at91 patched kernel + our patch ?
> With this you'll have a lot of at91 patch in it.
> 
> Maybe we can try to make a diff between
> at91 patched kernel +adeos patch  and at91 patched kernel + our patch ?
> But with this solution we have to made some modification on adeos
> patch for applying it on at91 patched kernel.
> 
> Last solution is to attach the file modified.

Already tried interdiff between to original ipipe patch and your version?

Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]