Hi.
I want to submit the ARM26 architecture. its still broken, but its
getting there. now a couple more people want to hack on it, so I'd
appreciate it if you could put the non-invasive parts into the kernel
tree for me.
I have two patches - one to add arch/arm26 and another to add the
corresponding incluse/asm-arm26
will you accept them?
--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.
Systems programmers keep it up longer.
On Maw, 2003-05-13 at 15:33, Ian Molton wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I want to submit the ARM26 architecture. its still broken, but its
> getting there. now a couple more people want to hack on it, so I'd
> appreciate it if you could put the non-invasive parts into the kernel
> tree for me.
>
> I have two patches - one to add arch/arm26 and another to add the
> corresponding incluse/asm-arm26
>
> will you accept them?
I guess its no crazier than the MacII port. What does Russell think
about it however and also is this 2.4 or 2.5 targetted ?
On 13 May 2003 15:23:39 +0100
Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I guess its no crazier than the MacII port. What does Russell think
> about it however and also is this 2.4 or 2.5 targetted ?
I know its a bit insane, but there appears (at long last!) to be a small
community picking up ;-)
Russell is fine with it, and in fact, you can see he has begun accepting
patches from me to remove arm26 from 2.5.
it is 2.5 targetted currently 2.5.30, but the arch/ and asm/ stuff is
independant as far as the rest of the tree is concerned, so it may as
well go in as 'current' and then I can submit smaller patches to 'catch
up' with the rest.
it actually compiles on 2.5.30 (at least, some of it does ;-) and runs,
excpet so far, mm stuff fails and user-land falls over HARD ver early.
where do I send my patches? ;-)
--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.
Systems programmers keep it up longer.
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 03:23:39PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> I guess its no crazier than the MacII port. What does Russell think
> about it however and also is this 2.4 or 2.5 targetted ?
I'm fine with it; I'd rather someone else (who has more interest
in the machines) picked it up.
The basic idea is to rip out the arm26 code from arch/arm and
include/asm-arm, thereby allowing include/asm-arm/proc-armv to
be collapsed into include/asm-arm, removing some clutter.
Separating it out should also allow arm26 to shrink down to
something smaller, which is fairly critical for these machines.
--
Russell King ([email protected]) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
On Tue, 13 May 2003 17:00:29 +0100
Russell King <[email protected]> wrote:
> The basic idea is to rip out the arm26 code from arch/arm and
> include/asm-arm, thereby allowing include/asm-arm/proc-armv to
> be collapsed into include/asm-arm, removing some clutter.
Yep.
speaking of which - let me know when you want the next round of patches
to remove the ARM26 stuff from arch/arm please ;-)
> Separating it out should also allow arm26 to shrink down to
> something smaller, which is fairly critical for these machines.
Yep. the [compiled size of the] kernel has already begun to decrease,
and its looking quite promising (If I ever get the time to finish it!)
I just want to get it 'out there' so the couple of other folks
interested can start hacking on it too.
I have an ide driver too, if anyone wants to submit it for the
mainstream kernel. It drives SIMTEC IDE cards, found in Acorn machines,
and is, of course, non-invasive to the tree. Its for 2.4. I'd imagine
Russell would be happy to let someone else take it off his hands?
(Russell?)
--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.
Systems programmers keep it up longer.
On Maw, 2003-05-13 at 16:30, Ian Molton wrote:
> it is 2.5 targetted currently 2.5.30, but the arch/ and asm/ stuff is
> independant as far as the rest of the tree is concerned, so it may as
> well go in as 'current' and then I can submit smaller patches to 'catch
> up' with the rest.
>
> it actually compiles on 2.5.30 (at least, some of it does ;-) and runs,
> excpet so far, mm stuff fails and user-land falls over HARD ver early.
>
> where do I send my patches? ;-)
I'll roll the include/asm and arch/arm26 bits into -ac happily, if only so
they are seen for criticism. (Read hch filling your mailbox 8))
On 13 May 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> I guess its no crazier than the MacII port. What does Russell think
Wait until we're gonna submit the TekExpress port for 2.4.22... ;-)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 13:35, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On 13 May 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I guess its no crazier than the MacII port. What does Russell think
>
> Wait until we're gonna submit the TekExpress port for 2.4.22... ;-)
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
That's hilarious and ironic. It was because of the hefty price of
things like the TekXpress XP15 that I first got interested in Linux
(Slackware 1.0.2) as a relatively cheap and effective X-terminal for our
clients running on a DECstation 5000 (MIPS R3000).
The name TekExpress or TekXpress could be confusing since some had 68020
or 68030 CPUs and some had the MIPS R3000 if I remember correctly.
Googling shows quite a few variants of name/CPU type.
Steven
On 13 May 2003, Steven Cole wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 13:35, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On 13 May 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > I guess its no crazier than the MacII port. What does Russell think
> >
> > Wait until we're gonna submit the TekExpress port for 2.4.22... ;-)
>
> That's hilarious and ironic. It was because of the hefty price of
> things like the TekXpress XP15 that I first got interested in Linux
> (Slackware 1.0.2) as a relatively cheap and effective X-terminal for our
> clients running on a DECstation 5000 (MIPS R3000).
>
> The name TekExpress or TekXpress could be confusing since some had 68020
> or 68030 CPUs and some had the MIPS R3000 if I remember correctly.
> Googling shows quite a few variants of name/CPU type.
I was talking about the m68k variants.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
On Maw, 2003-05-13 at 20:35, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On 13 May 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I guess its no crazier than the MacII port. What does Russell think
>
> Wait until we're gonna submit the TekExpress port for 2.4.22... ;-)
And a port of qemu so it can run x86 binaries too ?