In order to support the Microsoft Xbox, we need to add a config option
'CONFIG_X86_XBOX'.
You can also download this patch at:
http://linux.g-rave.nl/patches/patch-xbox-config_option.diff
---
Kconfig | 14 +++++++++++++-
1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -u -r --new-file linux-2.6.9-rc3/arch/i386/Kconfig
linux-2.6.9-rc3-ed0/arch/i386/Kconfig
--- linux-2.6.9-rc3/arch/i386/Kconfig 2004-09-30 05:03:56.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.9-rc3-ed0/arch/i386/Kconfig 2004-10-09 19:32:33.981610000 +0200
@@ -55,6 +55,18 @@
If unsure, choose "PC-compatible" instead.
+config X86_XBOX
+ bool "Microsoft Xbox"
+ help
+ This option is needed to make Linux boot on a Microsoft Xbox.
+
+ If you are not planning on running this kernel on a Microsoft Xbox,
+ say N here, otherwise the kernel you build will not be bootable.
+
+ For more information about Xbox Linux, visit:
+
+ http://www.xbox-linux.org/
+
config X86_VOYAGER
bool "Voyager (NCR)"
help
@@ -1206,7 +1218,7 @@
config X86_BIOS_REBOOT
bool
- depends on !(X86_VISWS || X86_VOYAGER)
+ depends on !(X86_VISWS || X86_VOYAGER || X86_XBOX)
default y
config X86_TRAMPOLINE
Why can't theese patches be maintained outside the kernel tree , as it is
now ?
I'm strongly against this because the X-Box is a gaming platform and last I
heard ( and I could be wrong here ) is that you had to hack your X-Box in
order to load any other os then the one supplied with it. I just don't see a
justified reason why theese patches should be included into the kernel.
matt
On Saturday 09 October 2004 12:57 pm, Ed Schouten wrote:
> In order to support the Microsoft Xbox, we need to add a config option
> 'CONFIG_X86_XBOX'.
>
> You can also download this patch at:
> http://linux.g-rave.nl/patches/patch-xbox-config_option.diff
> ---
>
> Kconfig | 14 +++++++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff -u -r --new-file linux-2.6.9-rc3/arch/i386/Kconfig
> linux-2.6.9-rc3-ed0/arch/i386/Kconfig
> --- linux-2.6.9-rc3/arch/i386/Kconfig 2004-09-30 05:03:56.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.9-rc3-ed0/arch/i386/Kconfig 2004-10-09 19:32:33.981610000
> +0200 @@ -55,6 +55,18 @@
>
> If unsure, choose "PC-compatible" instead.
>
> +config X86_XBOX
> + bool "Microsoft Xbox"
> + help
> + This option is needed to make Linux boot on a Microsoft Xbox.
> +
> + If you are not planning on running this kernel on a Microsoft Xbox,
> + say N here, otherwise the kernel you build will not be bootable.
> +
> + For more information about Xbox Linux, visit:
> +
> + http://www.xbox-linux.org/
> +
> config X86_VOYAGER
> bool "Voyager (NCR)"
> help
> @@ -1206,7 +1218,7 @@
>
> config X86_BIOS_REBOOT
> bool
> - depends on !(X86_VISWS || X86_VOYAGER)
> + depends on !(X86_VISWS || X86_VOYAGER || X86_XBOX)
> default y
>
> config X86_TRAMPOLINE
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 16:15, Matt Heler wrote:
> Why can't theese patches be maintained outside the kernel tree , as it is
> now ?
>
> I'm strongly against this because the X-Box is a gaming platform and last I
> heard ( and I could be wrong here ) is that you had to hack your X-Box in
> order to load any other os then the one supplied with it. I just don't see a
> justified reason why theese patches should be included into the kernel.
>
How is this any different from running Linux on a Sparc? Sun would
probably consider that "hacking"...
Lee
Matt Heler wrote:
> Why can't theese patches be maintained outside the kernel tree , as it is
> now ?
>
> I'm strongly against this because the X-Box is a gaming platform and last I
> heard ( and I could be wrong here ) is that you had to hack your X-Box in
> order to load any other os then the one supplied with it. I just don't see a
> justified reason why theese patches should be included into the kernel.
>
<TrollMode>
Well, Altix is a server platform, last I heard I had to hack my credit
card institute in order to get one.
I suspect there are more people using xbox w/ linux than altix users.
</TrollMode>
Really, Linux already supports so many varieties of hardware used by
only a small number of people. It's just convenient to have it in
mainline and adapted when api changes.
Jan
Hello Matt,
On Sat, October 9, 2004 10:15 pm, Matt Heler said:
> Why can't theese patches be maintained outside the kernel tree , as it is
> now ?
>
> I'm strongly against this because the X-Box is a gaming platform and last
> I heard ( and I could be wrong here ) is that you had to hack your X-Box in
> order to load any other os then the one supplied with it. I just don't see
> a justified reason why theese patches should be included into the kernel.
It is true that you have to make some modifications to your Xbox, for
example: flashing the BIOS with Cromwell (BIOS with a Linux loader).
The main reason why it should be merged (in my opinion) is that a lot of
Linux distro's reject Xbox-Linux because it's not in the mainline
sourcetree (Debian for example, they only want vanilla platforms).
These patches are only 102 lines together, which is a small amount to
support a new platform.
Yours,
--
Ed Schouten <[email protected]>
Website: http://g-rave.nl/
If it does go into mainline. What's to stop the inclusion of other gaming
platforms into the kernel . Say for instance Playstation or Gamecube or some
other variant.
matt
On Saturday 09 October 2004 1:36 pm, Jan Dittmer wrote:
> Matt Heler wrote:
> > Why can't theese patches be maintained outside the kernel tree , as it is
> > now ?
> >
> > I'm strongly against this because the X-Box is a gaming platform and last
> > I heard ( and I could be wrong here ) is that you had to hack your X-Box
> > in order to load any other os then the one supplied with it. I just don't
> > see a justified reason why theese patches should be included into the
> > kernel.
>
> <TrollMode>
> Well, Altix is a server platform, last I heard I had to hack my credit
> card institute in order to get one.
> I suspect there are more people using xbox w/ linux than altix users.
> </TrollMode>
>
> Really, Linux already supports so many varieties of hardware used by
> only a small number of people. It's just convenient to have it in
> mainline and adapted when api changes.
>
> Jan
If it does go into mainline. What's to stop the inclusion of other gaming
platforms into the kernel . Say for instance Playstation or Gamecube or some
other variant.
matt
On Saturday 09 October 2004 1:36 pm, Jan Dittmer wrote:
> Matt Heler wrote:
> > Why can't theese patches be maintained outside the kernel tree , as it is
> > now ?
> >
> > I'm strongly against this because the X-Box is a gaming platform and last
> > I heard ( and I could be wrong here ) is that you had to hack your X-Box
> > in order to load any other os then the one supplied with it. I just don't
> > see a justified reason why theese patches should be included into the
> > kernel.
>
> <TrollMode>
> Well, Altix is a server platform, last I heard I had to hack my credit
> card institute in order to get one.
> I suspect there are more people using xbox w/ linux than altix users.
> </TrollMode>
>
> Really, Linux already supports so many varieties of hardware used by
> only a small number of people. It's just convenient to have it in
> mainline and adapted when api changes.
>
> Jan
On Sat, October 9, 2004 10:48 pm, Matt Heler said:
> If it does go into mainline. What's to stop the inclusion of other gaming
> platforms into the kernel . Say for instance Playstation or Gamecube or
> some other variant.
Playstation 2 has an incomplete toolchain (I tried to compile Linux 2.4.26
with the Playstation 2 drivers, but it failed on a lot if MIPS ASM code).
The patch I made is 184KB (gzipped) and is available at:
http://www.il.fontys.nl/~ed/linux-2.4.26-ps2.diff.gz
So if anyone would like to develop it a little further, do your thing ;-)
Gamecube doesn't have a rootfs (only NFS and ramdisk), so I guess distro's
for that machine won't show up soon ;-)
Yours,
--
Ed Schouten <[email protected]>
Website: http://g-rave.nl/
Matt Heler <[email protected]> writes:
> If it does go into mainline. What's to stop the inclusion of other gaming
> platforms into the kernel . Say for instance Playstation or Gamecube or some
> other variant.
What would be the problem if that happened?
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 01:47:56PM -0700, Matt wrote:
> If it does go into mainline. What's to stop the inclusion of other gaming
> platforms into the kernel . Say for instance Playstation or Gamecube or some
> other variant.
>
PlayStation 1 won't make it due to the current state of mipsnommu.
On the other hand, Dreamcast support in the kernel as is is quite good.
It's actually one of the best supported platforms of the sh arch.
I'm not sure I get your point about keeping gaming platforms out of the
kernel, they're just another embedded platform, what's the issue?
Paul Mundt wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 01:47:56PM -0700, Matt wrote:
>
>
>>If it does go into mainline. What's to stop the inclusion of other gaming
>>platforms into the kernel . Say for instance Playstation or Gamecube or some
>>other variant.
>>
>>
>>
>PlayStation 1 won't make it due to the current state of mipsnommu.
>
>
>
Plus, the PS1 has 2 MB RAM - dunno too much about ultra-small embedded
systems, but that seems like too little memory even for an
ultra-stripped kernel and a shell.
>On the other hand, Dreamcast support in the kernel as is is quite good.
>It's actually one of the best supported platforms of the sh arch.
>
>I'm not sure I get your point about keeping gaming platforms out of the
>kernel, they're just another embedded platform, what's the issue?
>
>
>
PC gaming is one of the driving forces for the development of faster 3D
graphics systems - should we refuse to make ATI and Nvidia graphics
cards work since those are primarily used for games?
OTOH, Sony has a very evil reputation for sending lawyers after anyone
who publishes programming information for their consoles - try to
reverse-engineer the (proprietary) runtime environment that came with
their Linux kit, and watch the nastygrams come. Since Sony didn't do
any silliness with digitally signed executables ala XBox, the only way
they can keep unauthorized software from being published is to attack
anyone who tries to release the hardware information needed to make a
bootable CD/DVD.
On Sun, 2004-10-10 at 07:36, Jim Nelson wrote:
> OTOH, Sony has a very evil reputation for sending lawyers after anyone
> who publishes programming information for their consoles - try to
> reverse-engineer the (proprietary) runtime environment that came with
> their Linux kit, and watch the nastygrams come.
Wouldn't these just be empty threats? Reverse engineering for
interoperability is legal even in the US.
Lee