From: Lou M. <lmo...@gm...> - 2012-02-24 05:20:30
|
I'm wondering the same thing. Is there a gitorious repo for the angstrom v2.39 build? On Thursday, February 23, 2012, Dan Nelson <Dan...@ro...> wrote: > I've built a kernel using bitbake. It's version 3.0, is this build > stable and the one I should be using? How do I get bitbake to build a > 2.6 kernel? > > Dan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning > Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing > also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. > http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > -- -Louis Morda SAIC Computer Scientist lmo...@gm... |
From: JamesAng <ang...@gm...> - 2012-02-24 09:19:35
|
Louis Morda wrote > > I'm wondering the same thing. Is there a gitorious repo for the angstrom > v2.39 build? > > On Thursday, February 23, 2012, Dan Nelson <Dan.Nelson@> wrote: >> I've built a kernel using bitbake. It's version 3.0, is this build >> stable and the one I should be using? How do I get bitbake to build a >> 2.6 kernel? >> >> Dan > Steve's has the 2.6.39 & some earlier branches in his repo. Anyway, 3.0 is just 2.6.39++ since there is no 2.6.40 or above.. James Ang -- View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Creating-a-new-kernel-recipe-for-v3-2-tp2306518p4501899.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Dan N. <Dan...@ro...> - 2012-02-24 01:13:55
|
I've built a kernel using bitbake. It's version 3.0, is this build stable and the one I should be using? How do I get bitbake to build a 2.6 kernel? Dan |
From: Frank A. <ft...@ya...> - 2012-02-27 15:14:11
|
On 2/25/2012 2:49 PM, gzp wrote: > I've just tried (applying the patch > http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/file/n4507418/sakoman_l3_2.patch > sakoman_l3_2.patch aganst the startup hang) your kernel version 3.2 works > well. I've also included the dsp bridge (staging) module and according to > the ti userspace sample (ping, scale, etc.) it is working well. I've applied the patch as well. I can confirm that the patch fixes the hang I was seeing with with OMAP 3530. I also ran with the patch against OMAP 3503 and OMAP 3630 and the kernel boots successfully for those CPU's as well. > > I'm using MLO and u-boot from the overo-2011.03-branch. Is there any > modification in yours, that may alter the kernel behavior ? I am using the same versions of MLO and u-boot. The kernel is now booting successfully, so I'm not sure I understand this question. Are you saying you are seeing altered kernel behavior or are you asking if I am seeing altered kernel behavior? The kernel is booting successfully and I am not seeing any abnormal behavior. frank |
From: gzp <z.p...@gm...> - 2012-02-27 16:29:11
|
I mean, it is working great. I was curious if it is good enough to use the "original" MLO from the overo branch, or I may experience some instability later on. Steve wrote somewhere to use his MLO version, and I just wanted to know if V3.2 and his MLO has some strict (hidden) dependency. Thanks. -- View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Creating-a-new-kernel-recipe-for-v3-2-tp2306518p4515331.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Frank A. <ft...@ya...> - 2012-01-25 22:09:13
|
On 1/24/2012 1:43 PM, Steve Sakoman wrote: > I guess I should remind people again that my omap-3.2 kernel branch is > a work-in-progress. > > Assuming that it is stable, functional for all configs, or remotely > safe to use would be a mistake! Understood. But I do like the bleeding edge.... > > Use at your own risk, it is a background task for me and I will drop a > note here when I think it is safe to use. > > Bug reports are welcome, and I will investigate issues as I have time. I tracked down the problem booting my omap3530 with v3.2 kernel. The kernel reads the status register and determines that the CPU can support 720Mhz (omap3_check_features). From what I can tell, the check is done correctly (variable status in omap3_check_features is set to 0x08, which looks like the right bit for 720Mhz support). Since the kernel thinks that 720Mhz is supported, it calls omap3_opp_enable_720Mhz (file opp3xx_data.c). The kernel dies silently when it calls the opp enable for 720Mhz, at or near line 178: 176 pdev = &oh_mpu->od->pdev; 177 178 r = opp_enable(&pdev->dev, 720000000); That's as far as I can take the debug. I'm going to disable the check for 720Mhz in my local tree until this can get sorted out. frank |
From: Trevor W. <two...@gm...> - 2012-01-25 22:18:04
|
Hi Frank, On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Frank Agius <ft...@ya...> wrote: > The kernel dies silently when it calls the opp enable > for 720Mhz, at or near line 178: > > 176 pdev = &oh_mpu->od->pdev; > 177 > 178 r = opp_enable(&pdev->dev, 720000000); > > That's as far as I can take the debug. I'd be curious to know (and was wondering if you wouldn't mind mentioning) what tool/mechanism you are using to debug the booting kernel: JTAG? printk()? gdb? Best regards, Trevor |
From: Frank A. <ft...@ya...> - 2012-01-25 22:24:28
|
On 1/25/2012 5:17 PM, Trevor Woerner wrote: > Hi Frank, > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Frank Agius<ft...@ya...> wrote: >> The kernel dies silently when it calls the opp enable >> for 720Mhz, at or near line 178: >> >> 176 pdev =&oh_mpu->od->pdev; >> 177 >> 178 r = opp_enable(&pdev->dev, 720000000); >> >> That's as far as I can take the debug. > > I'd be curious to know (and was wondering if you wouldn't mind > mentioning) what tool/mechanism you are using to debug the booting > kernel: JTAG? printk()? gdb? Good old printk, and a lot of patience. frank |
From: gzp <z.p...@gm...> - 2012-02-24 00:12:00
|
I have not traced the code nor tried it, but in line 176, the "&" shall be removed: pdev = oh_mpu->od->pdev; (and some lines below as well for pdev = oh_iva->od->pdev; ) Unless there is some magic bit-hacking behind, the code is incorrect and the behavour is undefined: od has a struct platform_device* member and not a plaform_device. (By the way the compiler did give a warning about this typo) gzp -- View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Creating-a-new-kernel-recipe-for-v3-2-tp2306518p4500521.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: gzp <z.p...@gm...> - 2012-02-25 19:49:54
|
I've just tried (applying the patch http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/file/n4507418/sakoman_l3_2.patch sakoman_l3_2.patch aganst the startup hang) your kernel version 3.2 works well. I've also included the dsp bridge (staging) module and according to the ti userspace sample (ping, scale, etc.) it is working well. I'm using MLO and u-boot from the overo-2011.03-branch. Is there any modification in yours, that may alter the kernel behavior ? gzp -- View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Creating-a-new-kernel-recipe-for-v3-2-tp2306518p4507418.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Nader R. <na...@ra...> - 2012-01-05 20:51:26
|
H Phil, I used Steve's prebuilt R13 images from his site to burn the uSD card for booting. I was unable to compile my own kernel. His prebuilt images work great From: "da-phil [via Gumstix]" <ml-...@n6...> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 09:46:15 -0800 (PST) To: Nader Rahimizad <na...@ra...> Subject: Re: Creating a new kernel recipe for v3.2 Did you get it working? I'm working with the Sakoman 'omap-3.2' branch and after using the omap2plus_defconfig and fixing some compile errors in the beagle and overo board files it compiles without errors. However the system is not booting with this kernel :( There's nothing coming after "Uncompressing Linux... done, booting the kernel.", even after activating early printk's. Does anybody have a working kernel config for v3.2? I figured out that the defconfig significantly differs from the defconfig I used to compile v3.0 (successful compilation & boot). It's important for me to have the most recent kernel because of some drivers (IIO & IMU) in the staging folder, which didn't work properly in v3.0. I'm hoping that the recent patches in this area are fixing the issues. Thanks! Phil -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Gumstix-users] Creating a new kernel recipe for v3.2 From: dtran11 <[hidden email] </user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3230587&i=0> > To: [hidden email] </user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3230587&i=1> Date: 12/29/2011 04:19 PM > I will give it a try once I get 3.2 built. The last time I built it I got > some errors. I will try to use Steve's defconfig next. > > -- > View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Creating-a-new-kernel-recipe-for-v3-2-tp2306518p2 507674.html > Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex > infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to > virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual > desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure > costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > [hidden email] </user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3230587&i=2> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox _______________________________________________ gumstix-users mailing list [hidden email] </user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3230587&i=3> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Creating-a-new-kernel-recipe-for-v3-2-tp23065 18p3230587.html To unsubscribe from Creating a new kernel recipe for v3.2, click here <http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_b y_code&node=2306518&code=bmFkZXJAcmFoaW1pemFkLmNvbXwyMzA2NTE4fDM0NDE3ODQ1OA= => . NAML <http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer& id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNames pace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.Insta ntMailNamespace&breadcrumbs=instant+emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_ema ils%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml> -- View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Creating-a-new-kernel-recipe-for-v3-2-tp2306518p3236416.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: dtran11 <dt...@gm...> - 2012-01-19 22:07:22
|
Hi Steve, is your kernel version 3.2 also pm capable? I assume it is not since it doesn't have the "-pm" suffix but just wanted to make sure. thanks. -- View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Creating-a-new-kernel-recipe-for-v3-2-tp2306518p3882259.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Steve S. <sa...@gm...> - 2012-01-19 22:41:33
|
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:07 PM, dtran11 <dt...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Steve, is your kernel version 3.2 also pm capable? I assume it is not > since it doesn't have the "-pm" suffix but just wanted to make sure. It should be -- there's enough "pm" upstream that I won't be doing 2 versions any longer. Steve |
From: JamesAng <ang...@gm...> - 2011-12-28 03:54:02
|
LOL!!.. So I'm not the only odd-nut here trying the same thingy to build a newer kernel.. (^^) I replaced defconfig from v3.0.0 with v3.2 from Steve's meta-sakoman repository and now I've better luck with the compilation. The new error is | arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c:317: error: 'THIS_MODULE' undeclared here (not in a function) | make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.o] Error 1 | make: *** [arch/arm/mach-omap2] Error 2 There's a patch queued for this which I don't think is in v3.2-rc2 yet. Laurent's branch is based on v3.2-rc2 which has many patches on top of it that might not be in v3.2-rc7 which Steve's has based it on for his. Now, I'm in a cross-junction as to how to get the OAMP3ISP patches either into Steve's v3.2-rc7 or the other way round. Either way is a big task to me.. (^^)" -- View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Creating-a-new-kernel-recipe-for-v3-2-tp2306518p2350193.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: dtran11 <dt...@gm...> - 2011-12-28 18:22:46
|
Can you post the link to the defconfig you used for 3.2? thanks. -- View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Creating-a-new-kernel-recipe-for-v3-2-tp2306518p2396047.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Steve S. <sa...@gm...> - 2011-12-28 21:59:53
|
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 10:22 AM, dtran11 <dt...@gm...> wrote: > Can you post the link to the defconfig you used for 3.2? http://www.sakoman.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=meta-sakoman.git;a=blob;f=recipes-kernel/linux/linux-sakoman-3.2/omap3-multi/defconfig;h=ed1c5fc5dd3d574e2cea985a5dd1e5525b2e5de7;hb=HEAD Steve |
From: CaseyS <cas...@gm...> - 2012-07-17 15:58:55
|
Hello, I am currently trying to build the linux 3.2 kernel using bitbake within the OE environment. I've created a user.collection folder and within that added a recipes and linux folder. In the linux folder I copied linux.inc from org.openembedded.dev/recipes/linux and created a linux-sakoman-3.2 folder, containing the defconfig file from this email chain. Lastly I modified the linux-sakoman-3.0.bb file to point to and create sakoman's 3.2 kernel. But every time I try and bitbake virtual/kernel it starts compiling linux-sakoman-3.0, also when I use "bitbake --show-versions | grep linux-sakoman" it displays the 3.0 version. Can anybody help me get bitbake to recognize and compile the 3.2 version. Casey -- View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Creating-a-new-kernel-recipe-for-v3-2-tp2306518p4964932.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: CaseyS <cas...@gm...> - 2012-07-17 16:00:39
|
Hello, I am currently trying to build the linux 3.2 kernel using bitbake within the OE environment. I've created a user.collection folder and within that added a recipes and linux folder. In the linux folder I copied linux.inc from org.openembedded.dev/recipes/linux and created a linux-sakoman-3.2 folder, containing the defconfig file from this email chain. Lastly I modified the linux-sakoman-3.0.bb file to point to and create sakoman's 3.2 kernel. But every time I try and bitbake virtual/kernel it starts compiling linux-sakoman-3.0, also when I use "bitbake --show-versions | grep linux-sakoman" it displays the 3.0 version. Can anybody help me get bitbake to recognize and compile the 3.2 version. -- View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Creating-a-new-kernel-recipe-for-v3-2-tp2306518p4964933.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: hobbesc7 <hob...@gm...> - 2012-07-25 12:51:45
|
CaseyS wrote > > But every time I try and bitbake virtual/kernel it starts compiling > linux-sakoman-3.0, also when I use "bitbake --show-versions | grep > linux-sakoman" it displays the 3.0 version. Can anybody help me get > bitbake to recognize and compile the 3.2 version. > I'm having the same trouble. I put linux-sakoman kernel recipes and sakoman's .confs in ~/overo-oe/user.collection (my USERBRANCH directory). It seems like bitbake looks in this directory, because I had to fix this line in sakoman's linux.inc, which bitbake complained about when I first ran it: 9 # Try to build & install perf 10 # require recipes/linux/linux-tools.inc But then the next time I ran "bitbake --show-versions | grep linux-sakoman" it displays the 3.0 version. Why won't it find 3.2? -- View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Creating-a-new-kernel-recipe-for-v3-2-tp2306518p4965017.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |