load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

[Marcel Lanz]

I have a binary only module for 2.4.x.
How much work is it to write a kind of wrapper to load an "old" module
on 2.6 ?

Marcel

Re: load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

[viro]

On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 04:30:04PM +0100, Marcel Lanz wrote:
> I have a binary only module for 2.4.x.
> How much work is it to write a kind of wrapper to load an "old" module
> on 2.6 ?

Unfeasible.

Re: load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Marcel Lanz wrote:

> I have a binary only module for 2.4.x.
> How much work is it to write a kind of wrapper to load an "old" module
> on 2.6 ?
>
> Marcel
> -

Basically impossible.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.22 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
            Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.

Re: load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 569 bytes --]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:58:15 GMT, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk said:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 04:30:04PM +0100, Marcel Lanz wrote:
> > I have a binary only module for 2.4.x.
> > How much work is it to write a kind of wrapper to load an "old" module
> > on 2.6 ?
> 
> Unfeasible.

http://www.minion.de for a counter-example.  Of course, the NVidia
driver was already built with a wrapper for the 2.4 kernel, so doing a
2.6 version wasn't too bad.

It's really going to depend on which kernel interfaces the module actually
uses, and what the module is doing.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

[David van Hoose]

Marcel Lanz wrote:
> I have a binary only module for 2.4.x.
> How much work is it to write a kind of wrapper to load an "old" module
> on 2.6 ?
> 
> Marcel

Which driver?

-David

Re: load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

[Marcel Lanz]

> Which driver?
ocdemonpp from macraigor for a parallel port JTAG device (RAVEN)

Re: load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

[Gene Heskett]

On Thursday 06 November 2003 11:06, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:58:15 GMT, 
viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk said:
>> On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 04:30:04PM +0100, Marcel Lanz wrote:
>> > I have a binary only module for 2.4.x.
>> > How much work is it to write a kind of wrapper to load an "old"
>> > module on 2.6 ?
>>
>> Unfeasible.
>
>http://www.minion.de for a counter-example.  Of course, the NVidia
>driver was already built with a wrapper for the 2.4 kernel, so doing
> a 2.6 version wasn't too bad.
>
It may be there, and I may have a copy of it, but it won't install if 
I'm running 2.6.0-test9-mm2.

>It's really going to depend on which kernel interfaces the module
> actually uses, and what the module is doing.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz  512M
99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 516 bytes --]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 12:43:19 EST, Gene Heskett said:

> It may be there, and I may have a copy of it, but it won't install if 
> I'm running 2.6.0-test9-mm2.

Huh?  I'm running -test9-mm2 with the minion stuff as I'm typing this.

Or are you talking about the general case if you have a wrapper for
a 2.4 kernel?  If so, then yes, you'll need to do some programming to
get the wrapper to do things the 2.6 way (which is what minion's patch
basically does, it changes the NVidia 2.4 wrapper code to the 2.6 schemes).

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

[Gene Heskett]

On Thursday 06 November 2003 14:22, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 12:43:19 EST, Gene Heskett said:
>> It may be there, and I may have a copy of it, but it won't install
>> if I'm running 2.6.0-test9-mm2.
>
>Huh?  I'm running -test9-mm2 with the minion stuff as I'm typing
> this.

I've got minions 4496 here, so how did you make it work?  I had to 
revert to the kernel driver nv which doesn't do as much, but is 
easily 100000% more stable.

>Or are you talking about the general case if you have a wrapper for
>a 2.4 kernel?  If so, then yes, you'll need to do some programming
> to get the wrapper to do things the 2.6 way (which is what minion's
> patch basically does, it changes the NVidia 2.4 wrapper code to the
> 2.6 schemes).

-- 
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz  512M
99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 744 bytes --]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:33:12 EST, Gene Heskett said:

> I've got minions 4496 here, so how did you make it work?  I had to 
> revert to the kernel driver nv which doesn't do as much, but is 
> easily 100000% more stable.

Got NVidia's tarball, did the --extract-only thing, applied
the Minion patch, 'cp Makefile.kbuild Makefile', reboot to the
-mm2 kernel, 'cd src/NVdia<mumble>/usr/src/nv && make'.

Actually, I've just had to do the 'make' for the last umpteen kernel
revs - the Makefile dates back to Aug 4, and Sep 5 I had to apply a
2-line fix to nv-linux.h.

Not sure if the nv driver could be more stable - the last time I was
able to tickle the NVidia code into crashing either XFree86 or the kernel
was back in the 2.5.6* time frame.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

[Gene Heskett]

On Thursday 06 November 2003 14:52, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:33:12 EST, Gene Heskett said:
>> I've got minions 4496 here, so how did you make it work?  I had to
>> revert to the kernel driver nv which doesn't do as much, but is
>> easily 100000% more stable.
>
>Got NVidia's tarball, did the --extract-only thing, applied
>the Minion patch, 'cp Makefile.kbuild Makefile', reboot to the
>-mm2 kernel, 'cd src/NVdia<mumble>/usr/src/nv && make'.
>
>Actually, I've just had to do the 'make' for the last umpteen kernel
>revs - the Makefile dates back to Aug 4, and Sep 5 I had to apply a
>2-line fix to nv-linux.h.
>
>Not sure if the nv driver could be more stable - the last time I was
>able to tickle the NVidia code into crashing either XFree86 or the
> kernel was back in the 2.5.6* time frame.

Very very easily done.  ctrl-alt-f2 to a shell.  It may, or may not 
work.  crtl-alt-f7 back to X=locked up "tighter than Ft Knox" 
computer, reset button or power button is all that works.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz  512M
99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 612 bytes --]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:05:28 EST, Gene Heskett said:

> Very very easily done.  ctrl-alt-f2 to a shell.  It may, or may not 
> work.  crtl-alt-f7 back to X=locked up "tighter than Ft Knox" 
> computer, reset button or power button is all that works.

Odd.. That works fine for me as well (I often do that to go look and
see if exec-shield or ipfilters has tossed any odd messages).  I wonder
if it's because I'm using the vesafb framebuffer driver over there and you're
using something else? Or maybe the NVidia stuff happens to be stable for
the GeForce 440Go in my Dell laptop, but is wonky for your card/box?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

[Gene Heskett]

On Thursday 06 November 2003 15:23, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:05:28 EST, Gene Heskett said:
>> Very very easily done.  ctrl-alt-f2 to a shell.  It may, or may
>> not work.  crtl-alt-f7 back to X=locked up "tighter than Ft Knox"
>> computer, reset button or power button is all that works.
>
>Odd.. That works fine for me as well (I often do that to go look and
>see if exec-shield or ipfilters has tossed any odd messages).  I
> wonder if it's because I'm using the vesafb framebuffer driver over
> there and you're using something else? Or maybe the NVidia stuff
> happens to be stable for the GeForce 440Go in my Dell laptop, but
> is wonky for your card/box?

Dunno.  Card here is a gforce2-mx200, 32megs, your basic throwaway 
card.  X is 4.1.0, and I'm looking to see if I have the vesafb turned 
on, but I cannot find that as an option, and a grep of .config comes 
back empty.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz  512M
99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1667 bytes --]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:42:39 EST, Gene Heskett said:

> Dunno.  Card here is a gforce2-mx200, 32megs, your basic throwaway 
> card.  X is 4.1.0, and I'm looking to see if I have the vesafb turned 
> on, but I cannot find that as an option, and a grep of .config comes 
> back empty.

Hmm... I'm using XFree86 4.3.0, which probably makes a big difference.

Also, try tweaking the values of NvAGP in the XF86Config-4 file
(I'm using NvAGP=3, your mileage may vary, depending on whether the 
NVidia AGP support or the agpgart version plays nicer with your box).

Here's the relevant .config I'm using (oh, and I use 'vga=794' at
boot, which gives me a 64x160 char display..

#
# Graphics support
#
CONFIG_FB=y
# CONFIG_FB_CYBER2000 is not set
# CONFIG_FB_IMSTT is not set
# CONFIG_FB_VGA16 is not set
CONFIG_FB_VESA=y
CONFIG_VIDEO_SELECT=y
# CONFIG_FB_HGA is not set
# CONFIG_FB_RIVA is not set
# CONFIG_FB_I810 is not set
# CONFIG_FB_MATROX is not set
# CONFIG_FB_RADEON is not set
# CONFIG_FB_ATY128 is not set
# CONFIG_FB_ATY is not set
# CONFIG_FB_SIS is not set
# CONFIG_FB_NEOMAGIC is not set
# CONFIG_FB_3DFX is not set
# CONFIG_FB_VOODOO1 is not set
# CONFIG_FB_TRIDENT is not set
# CONFIG_FB_VIRTUAL is not set

#
# Console display driver support
#
CONFIG_VGA_CONSOLE=y
# CONFIG_MDA_CONSOLE is not set
CONFIG_DUMMY_CONSOLE=y
CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE=y
CONFIG_PCI_CONSOLE=y
# CONFIG_FONTS is not set
CONFIG_FONT_8x8=y
CONFIG_FONT_8x16=y

#
# Logo configuration
#
CONFIG_LOGO=y
CONFIG_LOGO_LINUX_MONO=y
CONFIG_LOGO_LINUX_VGA16=y
CONFIG_LOGO_LINUX_CLUT224=y

Works for me, hopefully something here will click and we'll figure out
why it isn't working for you...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 07 November 2003 00:28, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:42:39 EST, Gene Heskett said:
>> Dunno.  Card here is a gforce2-mx200, 32megs, your basic throwaway
>> card.  X is 4.1.0, and I'm looking to see if I have the vesafb
>> turned on, but I cannot find that as an option, and a grep of
>> .config comes back empty.
>
>Hmm... I'm using XFree86 4.3.0, which probably makes a big
> difference.
>
>Also, try tweaking the values of NvAGP in the XF86Config-4 file
>(I'm using NvAGP=3, your mileage may vary, depending on whether the
>NVidia AGP support or the agpgart version plays nicer with your
> box).
>
Thats already in there.

>Here's the relevant .config I'm using (oh, and I use 'vga=794' at
>boot, which gives me a 64x160 char display..

Which gave me a blank screen on an earlier boot attempt...
>
>#
># Graphics support
>#
>CONFIG_FB=y  OK
># CONFIG_FB_CYBER2000 is not set
># CONFIG_FB_IMSTT is not set
># CONFIG_FB_VGA16 is not set
>CONFIG_FB_VESA=y  OK
>CONFIG_VIDEO_SELECT=y OK
># CONFIG_FB_HGA is not set
># CONFIG_FB_RIVA is not set  is set y here
># CONFIG_FB_I810 is not set
># CONFIG_FB_MATROX is not set
># CONFIG_FB_RADEON is not set
># CONFIG_FB_ATY128 is not set
># CONFIG_FB_ATY is not set
># CONFIG_FB_SIS is not set
># CONFIG_FB_NEOMAGIC is not set
># CONFIG_FB_3DFX is not set
># CONFIG_FB_VOODOO1 is not set
># CONFIG_FB_TRIDENT is not set
># CONFIG_FB_VIRTUAL is not set
>
>#
># Console display driver support
>#
>CONFIG_VGA_CONSOLE=y  OK
># CONFIG_MDA_CONSOLE is not set
>CONFIG_DUMMY_CONSOLE=y  missing from 2.6.0-test9's xconfig
>CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE=y OK
>CONFIG_PCI_CONSOLE=y  missing
># CONFIG_FONTS is not set...is set here
>CONFIG_FONT_8x8=y  No
>CONFIG_FONT_8x16=y  OK
>
>#
># Logo configuration
>#
>CONFIG_LOGO=y  No here for all below
>CONFIG_LOGO_LINUX_MONO=y
>CONFIG_LOGO_LINUX_VGA16=y
>CONFIG_LOGO_LINUX_CLUT224=y
>
>Works for me, hopefully something here will click and we'll figure
> out why it isn't working for you...

I turned on the VESA_FB and fonts and its rebuilding now.  Thanks a 
bunch.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz  512M
99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: load 2.4.x binary only module on 2.6

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Marcel Lanz wrote:

> ocdemonpp from macraigor for a parallel port JTAG device (RAVEN)

The easiest way to get that running on 2.6 is to ask
the manufacturer to open source their driver ;)

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan