linux-apus-devel

Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C4mne:=20?=ADE/GG and APUS

[Alan B. <al...@ms...>]

hi,

> That's probably possible but I wouldn't recommend it. First of all, it would take forever to compile (even ppc hosted gcc is slow under amigaos) and second you run the risk of all sorts of trouble. Why do you even want to try if you've got linux/ppc running?

for fun of course! :-)  I'd would just be a dual convenience:   

One single ARexx script to perform 'kernel on demand' service
I was thinking of.

alan

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C4mne:=20?=ADE/GG and APUS

[nicholai <mp...@ch...>]

>does anyone run  CVS and GCC on the AmigaOS side here?
>

I do that to update boothack. It works just fine

>I also assume that I can compile kernels for APUS under AmigaOS now - if so , does anyone have hints and tips (and a shell script or command line)that they'd like to throw my way?

That's probably possible but I wouldn't recommend it. First of all, it would take forever to compile (even ppc hosted gcc is slow under amigaos) and second you run the risk of all sorts of trouble. Why do you even want to try if you've got linux/ppc running?

/Nicholai

ADE/GG and APUS

[Alan B. <al...@ms...>]

hi,

I've now installed the ADE/GeekGadgets system on my Amiga. i see I have
all the tools that I have under Linux (with a few exceptions) so just a
few questions.

does anyone run  CVS and GCC on the AmigaOS side here?

I'm assuming that i should be able to run CVS as if i'm under Linux with
no problems.

I also assume that I can compile kernels for APUS under AmigaOS now - if
so , does anyone have hints and tips (and a shell script or command line)
that they'd like to throw my way?

alan

Re: CVS checkout of 2.2

[Michel <dae...@st...>]

Frank Petzold wrote:
> 
> CVS_RSH=ssh cvs -z3 upd -dP
                            ^
What's the P switch for?


> cvs server: [00:27:47] waiting for mdaenzer's lock in
> /cvsroot/linux-apus/2.2/Documentation
> 
> I can't check out/update the 2.2 tree. Who can return the lock? Michel?

I hope so... what can I do?

I remember that CVS exited with a segfault once - maybe that's what caused
this problem?


> The sourceforge team?

Let's not hope so.


Michel


-- 
If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...
 ...Oh, wait a minute, he already does.
______________________________________________________________________________
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)  \  CS student and free software enthusiast
Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc,i386) user \   member of XFree86, Team *AMIGA*, AUGS

CVS checkout of 2.2

[<fp...@zu...>]

CVS_RSH=ssh cvs -z3 upd -dP
cvs server: [00:27:47] waiting for mdaenzer's lock in /cvsroot/linux-apus/2.2/Documentation


I can't check out/update the 2.2 tree. Who can return the lock? Michel?
The sourceforge team?
--
Frank Petzold, IBM Zurich Research Laboratory, Säumerstrasse 4,
CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland, Tel.  +41-1-724-84-42  Fax.   +41-1-724-89-56
 Business email: fp...@zu...          Private email: pe...@he...
   The opinions expressed here are mine and not necessarily those of IBM.

Re: Affs in 2.3

[Ken T. <ke...@we...>]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Michel [iso-8859-1] Dänzer wrote:

> Last time I checked, iounmap wasn't there either :(

Wild guffaws all round :) 

> But besides that issue it worked?

Yes, it would be fine not as a module, I'll have to figure out how to do
it as a removeable module (just something else to learn) . 

Ken.

Re: Affs in 2.3

[Michel <dae...@st...>]

Ken Tyler wrote:

> > > Looks like 53c7xx.c has been replaced with sim710.c in 2.3, I did
> > > compile this as a module for 2.2 as part of A4091 bug hunting - it
> > > suffers the same problems as the 53c7xx does on Zorro 3.
> >
> > But so it shouldn't be hard to get something working for Blizzard SCSI?
> > That's great news.
> 
> The module I compiled caused a crash when rmmod, couldn't figure out how
> to make it removeable considering it's tied up ZORRO resources, as well as
> the lack of un-ioremap in 2.2 (2.3 ?).

Last time I checked, iounmap wasn't there either :(


But besides that issue it worked?


Michel


-- 
I'm so hungry, I could almost eat health food.
______________________________________________________________________________
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)  \  CS student and free software enthusiast
Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc,i386) user \   member of XFree86, Team *AMIGA*, AUGS

Re: Affs in 2.3

[Ken T. <ke...@we...>]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Michel [iso-8859-1] Dänzer wrote:

> Ken Tyler wrote:
> 
> > Looks like 53c7xx.c has been replaced with sim710.c in 2.3, I did compile
> > this as a module for 2.2 as part of A4091 bug hunting - it suffers the
> > same problems as the 53c7xx does on Zorro 3.
> 
> But so it shouldn't be hard to get something working for Blizzard SCSI? That's
> great news.

The module I compiled caused a crash when rmmod, couldn't figure out how
to make it removeable considering it's tied up ZORRO resources, as well as
the lack of un-ioremap in 2.2 (2.3 ?).

Ken.

Re: Forced PCI support in kernel

[Michel <da...@re...>]

Michel Dänzer wrote:

> > > I think the best guess would be to have a global option to enable a pci
> > > kernel or not, if not we go for the old kernel style, and if yes we go
> > > for a pci kernel.
> >
> > Yep, just like CONFIG_ZORRO.
> 
> OK, I'll do that.

Committed. I've also added something to Configure.help.


Michel


-- 
Me? A skeptic? Can you prove it?
______________________________________________________________________________
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)  \  CS student and free software enthusiast
Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc,i386) user \   member of XFree86, Team *AMIGA*, AUGS

Re: Forced PCI support in kernel

[Geert U. <ge...@li...>]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Michel [iso-8859-1] Dänzer wrote:
> Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > What about automatically enabling PCI if the user wants pm2fb?
> > > > > Otherwise, we will have people ask "Why has pm2fb disappeared?" :)
> > > >
> > > > That's much more difficult, since CONFIG_PCI must be y before you can
> > > > see the pm2fb question.
> > >
> > > I take it you are talking about make config. With menuconfig, it would be
> > > possible to check for CONFIG_PCI or CONFIG_AMIGA and then set CONFIG_PCI
> > > if it isn't before, wouldn't it?
> > 
> > Nope. That's not the way to go. It might work with menuconfig, but not with
> > plain config. Perhaps with ESR's new config scheme proposal?
> 
> What is it about?

About a new configuration scheme with better dependencies and multiple
interfaces. Read all about it at linux-kernel or at ESR's homepage
(http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/ IIRC).

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@li...

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

Re: Forced PCI support in kernel

[Michel <da...@re...>]

Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> > > > What about automatically enabling PCI if the user wants pm2fb?
> > > > Otherwise, we will have people ask "Why has pm2fb disappeared?" :)
> > >
> > > That's much more difficult, since CONFIG_PCI must be y before you can
> > > see the pm2fb question.
> >
> > I take it you are talking about make config. With menuconfig, it would be
> > possible to check for CONFIG_PCI or CONFIG_AMIGA and then set CONFIG_PCI
> > if it isn't before, wouldn't it?
> 
> Nope. That's not the way to go. It might work with menuconfig, but not with
> plain config. Perhaps with ESR's new config scheme proposal?

What is it about?

However, we're talking about 2.2, so I guess we have to stick to
{menu,,x}config.


Michel


-- 
It's not a bug, it's tradition!
______________________________________________________________________________
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)  \  CS student and free software enthusiast
Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc,i386) user \   member of XFree86, Team *AMIGA*, AUGS

Re: Forced PCI support in kernel

[Geert U. <Gee...@so...>]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Michel [iso-8859-1] Dänzer wrote:
> Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > What about automatically enabling PCI if the user wants pm2fb? Otherwise,
> > > we will have people ask "Why has pm2fb disappeared?" :)
> > 
> > That's much more difficult, since CONFIG_PCI must be y before you can see
> > the pm2fb question.
> 
> I take it you are talking about make config. With menuconfig, it would be
> possible to check for CONFIG_PCI or CONFIG_AMIGA and then set CONFIG_PCI if it
> isn't before, wouldn't it?

Nope. That's not the way to go. It might work with menuconfig, but not with
plain config. Perhaps with ESR's new config scheme proposal?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven ------------- Sony Software Development Center Europe (SDCE)
Gee...@so... ------------------- Sint-Stevens-Woluwestraat 55
Voice +32-2-7248638 Fax +32-2-7262686 ---------------- B-1130 Brussels, Belgium

Re: Kernel 2.3 config

[Roman Z. <zi...@fh...>]

Hi,

> Could someone with a working (i.e. booting) 2.3 kernel please put
> his .config somewhere? I am still not able to get it working.

Hmm, my .config is currently around 500km away. Anyway, try to disable
anything, what isn't really necessary and I tested so far only the amifb,
the ariadne2 and the ide driver.

bye, Roman

Re: Forced PCI support in kernel

[Michel <da...@re...>]

Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> > > > will enabling PCI on all apus kernel be causing a problem ? making the
> > > > kernel bigger ?
> > >
> > > It will make the kernel bigger.
> >
> > Can you give an estimate how much?
> 
> After using objdump and summing up, I get about 113 KB of initdata (freed
> afterwards) and 18 KB permanent (plus a bit for data structures that are
> kmalloc'ed).
> 
> Not that bad for a nice /proc/bus/pci interface, right? :-)

No, but if it's empty...


> > What about automatically enabling PCI if the user wants pm2fb? Otherwise,
> > we will have people ask "Why has pm2fb disappeared?" :)
> 
> That's much more difficult, since CONFIG_PCI must be y before you can see
> the pm2fb question.

I take it you are talking about make config. With menuconfig, it would be
possible to check for CONFIG_PCI or CONFIG_AMIGA and then set CONFIG_PCI if it
isn't before, wouldn't it?

> Besides, my argument was that you must say CONFIG_ZORRO=y as well if you
> want to use Zorro graphics cards. So let's put in the FAQ that the pm2 is a
> PCI video card (technically it is).

Agreed.


Michel


-- 
UNIX is like Sex:
If you don't know it, you don't miss it. But if you know it, you'll need it.
______________________________________________________________________________
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)  \  CS student and free software enthusiast
Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc,i386) user \   member of XFree86, Team *AMIGA*, AUGS

Re: Forced PCI support in kernel

[Geert U. <Gee...@so...>]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Michel [iso-8859-1] Dänzer wrote:
> Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > As I said, PCI support is currently not a configure option but depends
> > > > on the architecture. If you want to change that, go ahead. I don't think
> > > > moving even further from the 'official' kernel is a good idea though.
> > 
> > Some archs do have CONFIG_PCI questions, though. Just like we have a
> > CONFIG_ZORRO question.
> 
> Well, no problem then :)
> 
> > > What difference are there if you enable PCI or not ?
> > > 
> > > will enabling PCI on all apus kernel be causing a problem ? making the
> > > kernel bigger ?
> > 
> > It will make the kernel bigger.
> 
> Can you give an estimate how much?

callisto$ ls -l drivers/pci/*[.oa]
-rw-r--r--    1 geert    users        2792 Jun  5 21:52 drivers/pci/compat.o
-rw-r--r--    1 geert    users      358400 Jun  5 21:52 drivers/pci/names.o
-rw-r--r--    1 geert    users      405592 Jun  5 21:52 drivers/pci/pci.a
-rw-r--r--    1 geert    users       18528 Jun  5 21:52 drivers/pci/pci.o
-rw-r--r--    1 geert    users       29549 Jun  5 21:52 drivers/pci/pci_core.o
-rw-r--r--    1 geert    users        8380 Jun  5 21:52 drivers/pci/proc.o
-r--r--r--    1 geert    users        8213 Jun  5 21:35 drivers/pci/quirks.c
-rw-r--r--    1 geert    users        4824 Jun  5 21:52 drivers/pci/quirks.o
-rw-r--r--    1 geert    users        2480 Jun  5 21:52 drivers/pci/setup-bus.o
-rw-r--r--    1 geert    users        1692 Jun  5 21:52 drivers/pci/setup-irq.o
-rw-r--r--    1 geert    users        3272 Jun  5 21:52 drivers/pci/setup-res.o
-rw-r--r--    1 geert    users        3416 Jun  5 21:52 drivers/pci/syscall.o

Notes:
  - I compiled with debugging on
  - The name database will be freed after booting (you can also disable it
    completely with CONFIG_PCI_NAMES=n)

After using objdump and summing up, I get about 113 KB of initdata (freed
afterwards) and 18 KB permanent (plus a bit for data structures that are
kmalloc'ed).

Not that bad for a nice /proc/bus/pci interface, right? :-)

> > > If the kernel is pci less, just don't propose pm2fb ?
> > >
> > > I suppose this would be no more changes than adding a configure option to
> > > the configuration stuff ?
> > 
> > Just remove the test for CONFIG_AMIGA. People need to be not so stupid to
> > disable CONFIG_ZORRO if they want to use Zorro devices also, so this sounds
> > OK to me.
> 
> What about automatically enabling PCI if the user wants pm2fb? Otherwise, we
> will have people ask "Why has pm2fb disappeared?" :)

That's much more difficult, since CONFIG_PCI must be y before you can see the
pm2fb question. Besides, my argument was that you must say CONFIG_ZORRO=y as
well if you want to use Zorro graphics cards. So let's put in the FAQ that the
pm2 is a PCI video card (technically it is).

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven ------------- Sony Software Development Center Europe (SDCE)
Gee...@so... ------------------- Sint-Stevens-Woluwestraat 55
Voice +32-2-7248638 Fax +32-2-7262686 ---------------- B-1130 Brussels, Belgium

Re: New experimental X 4.0

[Alan B. <al...@ms...>]

hi,

> > the linux-apus link has to be changed then.
> 
> Right. I'd do it, and I'm sure you'd already have done it, if the homepage
> files weren't read-only for group linux-apus...

yes, thats why I mentioned it - so that Sinan could sort it out
 
alan

Re: Forced PCI support in kernel

[Michel <da...@re...>]

Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> > > As I said, PCI support is currently not a configure option but depends
> > > on the architecture. If you want to change that, go ahead. I don't think
> > > moving even further from the 'official' kernel is a good idea though.
> 
> Some archs do have CONFIG_PCI questions, though. Just like we have a
> CONFIG_ZORRO question.

Well, no problem then :)


> > What difference are there if you enable PCI or not ?
> > 
> > will enabling PCI on all apus kernel be causing a problem ? making the
> > kernel bigger ?
> 
> It will make the kernel bigger.

Can you give an estimate how much?


> > I think the best guess would be to have a global option to enable a pci
> > kernel or not, if not we go for the old kernel style, and if yes we go for
> > a pci kernel.
> 
> Yep, just like CONFIG_ZORRO.

OK, I'll do that. Or Ken, do you have time?


> > If the kernel is pci less, just don't propose pm2fb ?
> >
> > I suppose this would be no more changes than adding a configure option to
> > the configuration stuff ?
> 
> Just remove the test for CONFIG_AMIGA. People need to be not so stupid to
> disable CONFIG_ZORRO if they want to use Zorro devices also, so this sounds
> OK to me.

What about automatically enabling PCI if the user wants pm2fb? Otherwise, we
will have people ask "Why has pm2fb disappeared?" :)


Michel


-- 
It's not a bug, it's tradition!
______________________________________________________________________________
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)  \  CS student and free software enthusiast
Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc,i386) user \   member of XFree86, Team *AMIGA*, AUGS

Re: Forced PCI support in kernel

[Geert U. <ge...@li...>]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:15:56AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > As I said, PCI support is currently not a configure option but depends on the
> > architecture. If you want to change that, go ahead. I don't think moving even
> > further from the 'official' kernel is a good idea though.

Some archs do have CONFIG_PCI questions, though. Just like we have a
CONFIG_ZORRO question.

> What difference are there if you enable PCI or not ?
> 
> will enabling PCI on all apus kernel be causing a problem ? making the kernel
> bigger ? 

It will make the kernel bigger.

> I think the best guess would be to have a global option to enable a pci kernel
> or not, if not we go for the old kernel style, and if yes we go for a pci
> kernel.

Yep, just like CONFIG_ZORRO.

> If the kernel is pci less, just don't propose pm2fb ?
> 
> I suppose this would be no more changes than adding a configure option to the
> configuration stuff ?

Just remove the test for CONFIG_AMIGA. People need to be not so stupid to
disable CONFIG_ZORRO if they want to use Zorro devices also, so this sounds OK
to me.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@li...

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

Re: Forced PCI support in kernel

[Sven L. <lu...@dp...>]

On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:15:56AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Sven LUTHER wrote:
> 
> > i guess is that you have to _compile_ the kernel with or without pci, so
> > what happens is that in order for a kernel to be able to use, or not use
> > pm2fb, it needs to be compiled with pci.
> 
> Exactly. pm2fb needs PCI to be compiled in.
> 
> 
> > > > What's the consensus on always having PCI support compiled in ?
> > > >
> > > > Should it be an option ?
> > >
> > > well, it should be an option if those without pm2's dont need PCI
> > 
> > Well, that said, it should be possible to compile the kernel without pci nor
> > pm2fb, but this should only be a configuration file change i think, ...
> > 
> > That is unless i missed something, Michel ?
> 
> As I said, PCI support is currently not a configure option but depends on the
> architecture. If you want to change that, go ahead. I don't think moving even
> further from the 'official' kernel is a good idea though.

What difference are there if you enable PCI or not ?

will enabling PCI on all apus kernel be causing a problem ? making the kernel
bigger ? 

I think the best guess would be to have a global option to enable a pci kernel
or not, if not we go for the old kernel style, and if yes we go for a pci
kernel.

If the kernel is pci less, just don't propose pm2fb ?

I suppose this would be no more changes than adding a configure option to the
configuration stuff ?

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: Forced PCI support in kernel

[Michel <da...@re...>]

Sven LUTHER wrote:

> i guess is that you have to _compile_ the kernel with or without pci, so
> what happens is that in order for a kernel to be able to use, or not use
> pm2fb, it needs to be compiled with pci.

Exactly. pm2fb needs PCI to be compiled in.


> > > What's the consensus on always having PCI support compiled in ?
> > >
> > > Should it be an option ?
> >
> > well, it should be an option if those without pm2's dont need PCI
> 
> Well, that said, it should be possible to compile the kernel without pci nor
> pm2fb, but this should only be a configuration file change i think, ...
> 
> That is unless i missed something, Michel ?

As I said, PCI support is currently not a configure option but depends on the
architecture. If you want to change that, go ahead. I don't think moving even
further from the 'official' kernel is a good idea though.


Michel


-- 
The Unix Guru's View of Sex:
unzip; strip; touch; grep; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; umount; sleep
______________________________________________________________________________
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)  \  CS student and free software enthusiast
Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc,i386) user \   member of XFree86, Team *AMIGA*, AUGS

Re: New experimental X 4.0

[Michel <da...@re...>]

Alan Buxey wrote:

> > The URL and filenames have changed a bit:
> >
> > http://n.ethz.ch/student/daenzerm/download/XFree86/
> >
> > This is 4.0b .
> 
> the linux-apus link has to be changed then.

Right. I'd do it, and I'm sure you'd already have done it, if the homepage
files weren't read-only for group linux-apus...


So please everyone, make all project files owned by group linux-apus and
writeable for it.


In the meantime, I've made a symlink so the old link works too.


Michel


-- 
Earth first!  We'll strip-mine the other planets later.
______________________________________________________________________________
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)  \  CS student and free software enthusiast
Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc,i386) user \   member of XFree86, Team *AMIGA*, AUGS

Re: Forced PCI support in kernel

[Alan B. <al...@ms...>]

hi,

> PCI is an architecture thing in the current kernel. Either an architecture has
> PCI, or it doesn't.

ah! of course.
 
alan

Re: Forced PCI support in kernel

[Sven L. <lu...@dp...>]

On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 09:47:32AM +0100, Alan Buxey wrote:
> hi,
> 
> > The latest Permedia 2 update as resulted in CONFIG_PCI always being true
> > with no way to remove it - even if a) you have no need for PCI, b) no
> > Permedia 2.
> 
> 2) really? If you dont have a PermediaII then there shouldnt be PCI -
> though if you have a CSPPC or BPPC you do have that PCI stuff present and
> it could be used to autodetect a pm2

Well, ...

i guess is that you have to _compile_ the kernel with or without pci, so what
happens is that in order for a kernel to be able to use, or not use pm2fb, it
needs to be compiled with pci.

> > What's the consensus on always having PCI support compiled in ?
> > 
> > Should it be an option ?
> 
> well, it should be an option if those without pm2's dont need PCI

Well, that said, it should be possible to compile the kernel without pci nor
pm2fb, but this should only be a configuration file change i think, ...

That is unless i missed something, Michel ?

Friendly,

Sven 

Re: Forced PCI support in kernel

[Alan B. <al...@ms...>]

hi,

> The latest Permedia 2 update as resulted in CONFIG_PCI always being true
> with no way to remove it - even if a) you have no need for PCI, b) no
> Permedia 2.

2) really? If you dont have a PermediaII then there shouldnt be PCI -
though if you have a CSPPC or BPPC you do have that PCI stuff present and
it could be used to autodetect a pm2

> What's the consensus on always having PCI support compiled in ?
> 
> Should it be an option ?

well, it should be an option if those without pm2's dont need PCI

alan

Kernel 2.3 config

[<fp...@zu...>]

Could someone with a working (i.e. booting) 2.3 kernel please put
his .config somewhere? I am still not able to get it working.
-- 
Frank Petzold, IBM Zurich Research Laboratory, Säumerstrasse 4,
CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland, Tel.  +41-1-724-84-42  Fax.   +41-1-724-89-56
 Business email: fp...@zu...          Private email: pe...@he...
   The opinions expressed here are mine and not necessarily those of IBM.