linux-apus-devel

Re: MOL

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

Hi,

On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Glenn Hisdal wrote:

> /usr/lib/mol/modules/mol.o: unresolved symbol find_path_device
> /usr/lib/mol/modules/mol.o: unresolved symbol get_module_symbol
> 
> I have the latest mol rpm for the 2.4 kernel installed.
> I get a warning saying that the mol.o module is build for the 2.4.0-test10
> kernel. Could something have changed between test10 and test11 making the
> module fail ?

BTW if someone wants to try it with test10, you can also go back to test10
with 'cvs up -r apus-2_4_0-test10' and then apply the change from test11
with 'cvs diff -r 1.1.1.1 -r 1.2 arch/ppc/lib/mol.h | patch -p0'.
But someone has to contact the MOL author, about find_path_device and
how/if it works without Open Firmware.

bye, Roman

Re: MOL

[Glenn H. <gh...@c2...>]

Hello 

On 27-Nov-2000, Roman wrote:


>> What is the correct command to checkout the mol branch ?

> If you already have the 2.2 sources, then 'cvs update -r mol-branch' is
> enough (and the fastest way), you can get back to the  original with 'cvs
> update -A'. If you need to check it out, append '-r mol-branch' to the
> checkout command.

ok. thanks :-)


- glenn

Re: MOL

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

Hi,

On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Glenn Hisdal wrote:

> /usr/lib/mol/modules/mol.o: unresolved symbol find_path_device

That's only defined if you have CONFIG_ALL_PPC selected, where I have no
idea whether that works... It might be needed to recompile the module for
apus and lets hope MOL can handle that there is no Open Firmware.

> /usr/lib/mol/modules/mol.o: unresolved symbol get_module_symbol

That function is gone with test11 and MOL needs to updated for that.

> I'd like to test with a 2.2 kernel too, but haven't downloaded the sources
> yet.
> What is the correct command to checkout the mol branch ?

If you already have the 2.2 sources, then 'cvs update -r mol-branch' is
enough (and the fastest way), you can get back to the  original with 'cvs
update -A'. If you need to check it out, append '-r mol-branch' to the
checkout command.

bye, Roman

Re: Incoming to hq.fsmlabs.com:/home/bk/linuxppc_2_3

[Dan M. <da...@mv...>]

Paul Mackerras wrote:
 
> Sound OK?

This sounds great, I'm so happy :-).  Now, if my e-mail would only
work better.........

Thanks.

	-- Dan

Re: MOL

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

Glenn Hisdal wrote:

> I have just tried MOL with the latest 2.4.0-test11 kernel.
> When trying to load the mol.o module, it complains about two unresolved
> symbols:
> 
> /usr/lib/mol/modules/mol.o: unresolved symbol find_path_device

I guess this for finding the Open Firmware (OF) path of a device. As we don't
have OF, I wonder if MOL works without it? Anyone would like to ask the MOL
developers? :)

> /usr/lib/mol/modules/mol.o: unresolved symbol get_module_symbol

Don't know about this one - a 'grep -l get_module_symbol' on the current tree
didn't show anything...

> I have the latest mol rpm for the 2.4 kernel installed.
> I get a warning saying that the mol.o module is build for the 2.4.0-test10
> kernel. Could something have changed between test10 and test11 making the
> module fail ?

I could imagine that something about get_module_symbol changed between test10
and test11, but even without that the issue with find_path_device remains...


> I'd like to test with a 2.2 kernel too, but haven't downloaded the sources
> yet.
> What is the correct command to checkout the mol branch ?

cvs -d[...] co -r mol-branch 2.2

or if you already have a 2.2 tree: (from the top level directory)

cvs upd -r mol-branch


Michel


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)  \  CS student and free software enthusiast
Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc,i386) user \   member of XFree86 and the DRI project

Re: MOL

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

hi,

> I'd like to test with a 2.2 kernel too, but haven't downloaded the sources
> yet.
> What is the correct command to checkout the mol branch ?

cvs co -r mol-branch 2.2

alan

MOL

[Glenn H. <gh...@c2...>]

Hi,

I have just tried MOL with the latest 2.4.0-test11 kernel.
When trying to load the mol.o module, it complains about two unresolved
symbols:

/usr/lib/mol/modules/mol.o: unresolved symbol find_path_device
/usr/lib/mol/modules/mol.o: unresolved symbol get_module_symbol

I have the latest mol rpm for the 2.4 kernel installed.
I get a warning saying that the mol.o module is build for the 2.4.0-test10
kernel. Could something have changed between test10 and test11 making the
module fail ?

Anyway, this was just to let you all know how it went.


I'd like to test with a 2.2 kernel too, but haven't downloaded the sources
yet.
What is the correct command to checkout the mol branch ?


-- 
--------------------------------------------------
Glenn Hisdal                homepage: http://home.c2i.net/ghisdal    
Trengereidfjord            ICQ UIN: 10801980
5658 Aarland               Amiga 4000 040/25, PPC/233, CyberVision64 
--------------------------------------------------

Re: Diff`s for MOL

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

hi,

> There are no branches like mol-branch in 2.3 . Just get the trunk.

okay, I've just hugged the main trunk :-)
 
alan

Re: Diff`s for MOL

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

Alan Buxey wrote:

> secondly.....if i want to get 2.3 from CVS that is in a compilable state
> and 'stable' do i just do a CVS grab of 2.3, or is there a particular
> branch that i should be using?

There are no branches like mol-branch in 2.3 . Just get the trunk.


> i note the bk_20001124 and apus-2_4_0-test10 branches that seem to be
> quite 'interesting'

AFAIK only the former one is a branch (imports create implicit branches). The
latter is a normal tag which marks the point where Roman has imported test10
and fixed the conflicts.


Michel


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)  \  CS student and free software enthusiast
Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc,i386) user \   member of XFree86 and the DRI project

Re: Diff`s for MOL

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

hi,

> What's in CVS/Root? Maybe you checked it out anonymously? If yes, it
> should be possible to directly replace that line and copy it to all the
> other Root files (somehow something like "find . -name Root -exec cp
> CVS/Root {} \;").

firstly, thanks, this was the problem.

secondly.....if i want to get 2.3 from CVS that is in a compilable state
and 'stable' do i just do a CVS grab of 2.3, or is there a particular
branch that i should be using?

i note the bk_20001124 and apus-2_4_0-test10 branches that seem to be
quite 'interesting'

alan

Re: MOL

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

hi,

> I got 2.3 booting with the MOL option enabled, it's the usual
> memory-starts-0-assumption. There might be more in the MOL package itself.
> A quick scan shows for example, that the ismolpatched tool will not work.
> A committed the same fix to 2.2, but I didn't test it. Anyway, there's a
> chance now that it works. :-)

I saw the committ for 2.2 mol-branch, i will be looking at it as soon as i
can

alan

Re: 2.3 kernel

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

fh...@at... wrote:
> 
> I tied compiling the 2.3 APUS kernel and ended up with undefined symbols.
> Does the 2.3 kernel compile and run alright?

It should in general, there may be problems with some configs. Please post the
undefined symbols you encounter.


Michel


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)  \  CS student and free software enthusiast
Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc,i386) user \   member of XFree86 and the DRI project

2.3 kernel

[<fh...@at...>]

I tied compiling the 2.3 APUS kernel and ended up with undefined symbols.  
Does the 2.3 kernel compile and run alright?

Fred

53c770 driver

[<fh...@at...>]

Has anyone tried the driver lately?

What happened.   I would like to see a dmesg output.

Also, some folks tried the original driver and evidently
it sort of worked.  (I saw this in an old email) If you are 
one of those people, what kernel version were you using?
I also did not see if they where using M68K or APUS.

I've been considering reloading M68K Linux to see if getting
the driver to work there is easier.  After all the NetBSD driver already
works.

Fred

Re: get_free_pages or kmalloc alignment in PPC

[<fh...@at...>]

In <Pin...@ca...rg>, on
11/27/00 
   at 08:30 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@li...> said:

>On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 fh...@at... wrote:

>> 
>> It looks like what most of the drivers I looked at do is add
>> a little extra to the size of the chunk and then move the
>> pointer so it's on a 32 bit boundary.  Seems simple enough.

BTW  I have been playing with a newer version of the LSI
SCSI driver.  In those versions, the data structure is allocated using a
power of two buddy malloc algorithm.  In the 53c770  driver I started with
the data structure is statically allocated. What would be the difference. 
i.e.  you have

( I call this statically allocated. )

struct mystruct {
    <blah>
}

instead of 

typedef struct mystruct {
    <blah>
} MYS;

    MYS *mys;

    mys = (MYS *)malloc( sizeof(MYS) );

I noticed that whenever I tried using the malloc procedure like the new
drivers, I would lose DMA to the data structure.

>> What if the chip that wants to do DMA only needs 16 bit
>> (or 8 bit) alignment?  It seems that then there is a further  problem
>> where the memory needs to be "synced" so the 
>> 16bit or 8 bit parts line up with the 32bit parts.

>Doesn't get_free_pages() simply return page-aligned data?

Hmmm.  I don't know much about get_free_pages.  The Linux
Device Driver book says nothing about how it aligns data.

Some of the driver codes I have looked at do strange things
to align memory accesses.  This would appear, on the surface, to be a
rather large short coming in the Linux kernel if true. But I am a dummy so
it's probably not. :)

Fred

Re: CVS Update: 2.2

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

hi,

> Log message:
> 	mol fix from 2.3 (untested!)

interesting....i'll have to have a look at this! :-)

alan

Re: [aj@azure.humbug.org.au: Potato revision 2]

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

Sorry, ...

was sick on friday, :(((

i think we lost the 2.2r2 target, ...

Now we can do stuff without hurrying.

On Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 01:12:43AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Sven LUTHER wrote:
> 
> > > I've verified that the old patches are all included. Don't know about
> > > boothack, can you check by comparing the dates?
> > 
> > Yes, i looked, the one in bootstrap is in a tarball from march. It mostly
> > contains my personal bootstrap setting, maybe something better should be
> > used. Should we open up this stuff to the apus lists ?
> 
> Yes, why not?

Ok, let's forward to them ...

> > i looked at the most recent bh, the one from june.
> > 
> > Best would be just to replace the bootstrap from
> > boot-floppies/powerpc/specials/bootstrap-apus.tgz by it, conserving all the
> > old stuff.
> 
> Agreed.

Ok, will do that.

> 
> > Are you aware of any change that needs to be done to the
> > install-apus.en.sgml file ?
> 
> Two things mainly. You have confused bootmesg and dmesg. And the move to
> SourceForge is complete, but the FAQ is still outdated :-/

I don't feel like writing for it. Maybe someone else will propose itself to do
the update ?

> > Should we had the debian root.bin as ramdisk image in the download part ?
> 
> Rather not. I've put up a link straight into the Debian FTP archive on the
> Install page of the APUS site at SourceForge. If we have a copy in the ramdisk
> module it only tends to lag behind.

mmm, yes, that is true, ...

> Unfortunately, I've had problems building. First of all, there was an error in
> the rules file - it didn't check for the right diff file, only for
> linux-*.diff.gz . Then I realized that the APUS CVS doesn't even contain a

Could you send me the error log ?

> native branch, so I had to create a new diff. Do you know if we could easily
> add a native branch/whatever now? Finally, the build process failed due to the

mmm, how did you obtain the diff you sent to me. I thought it is a straight
diff from linus's 2.2.10 (well the one from kernel.org or debians version).
That is all we really need.

In truth, maybe i did only a too quick fix for the package, please change all
linux-* reference to linux-apus-native, or whetever the patch was called. or
else we could rename the patch to linux-* ?

> missing .dsc file. Then I gave up for tonight, I'll hopefully have time to try
> again tomorrow...

mmm, ...

There should be no need for a .dsc file, it should be generated automatically
from the tarball i sent you when you do dpkg-buildpackage ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: get_free_pages or kmalloc alignment in PPC

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

On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 fh...@at... wrote:
> Is there any info on how to align memory in the Linux PPC
> kernel.  Actually info on how get_free_pages aligns memory.
> I'm guessing that this is the major problem with getting the
> PuP SCSI working.
> 
> It looks like what most of the drivers I looked at do is add
> a little extra to the size of the chunk and then move the
> pointer so it's on a 32 bit boundary.  Seems simple enough.
> What if the chip that wants to do DMA only needs 16 bit
> (or 8 bit) alignment?  It seems that then there is a further  problem
> where the memory needs to be "synced" so the 
> 16bit or 8 bit parts line up with the 32bit parts.

Doesn't get_free_pages() simply return page-aligned data?

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

get_free_pages or kmalloc alignment in PPC

[<fh...@at...>]

Is there any info on how to align memory in the Linux PPC
kernel.  Actually info on how get_free_pages aligns memory.
I'm guessing that this is the major problem with getting the
PuP SCSI working.

It looks like what most of the drivers I looked at do is add
a little extra to the size of the chunk and then move the
pointer so it's on a 32 bit boundary.  Seems simple enough.
What if the chip that wants to do DMA only needs 16 bit
(or 8 bit) alignment?  It seems that then there is a further  problem
where the memory needs to be "synced" so the 
16bit or 8 bit parts line up with the 32bit parts.

Fred

MOL

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

Hi,

I got 2.3 booting with the MOL option enabled, it's the usual
memory-starts-0-assumption. There might be more in the MOL package itself.
A quick scan shows for example, that the ismolpatched tool will not work.
A committed the same fix to 2.2, but I didn't test it. Anyway, there's a
chance now that it works. :-)

bye, Roman

CVS Update: 2.2

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

CVSROOT:	/cvsroot/linux-apus
Module name:	2.2
Repository:	2.2/arch/ppc/kernel/
Changes by:	zi...@sl....	00/11/26 16:00:42

Modified files:
	2.2/arch/ppc/kernel/: Tag: mol-branch head.S 

Log message:
	mol fix from 2.3 (untested!)

CVS Update: 2.3

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

CVSROOT:	/cvsroot/linux-apus
Module name:	2.3
Repository:	2.3/arch/ppc/kernel/
Changes by:	zi...@sl....	00/11/26 15:59:41

Modified files:
	2.3/arch/ppc/kernel/: mol.h 

Log message:
	boots now with MOL enabled

CVS Update: 2.3

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

CVSROOT:	/cvsroot/linux-apus
Module name:	2.3
Repository:	2.3/include/asm-ppc/
Changes by:	zi...@sl....	00/11/26 07:50:12

Modified files:
	./: Makefile 
	2.3/arch/ppc/: config.in 
	2.3/arch/ppc/kernel/: Makefile head.S ppc_ksyms.c setup.c 
	2.3/arch/ppc/mm/: init.c 
	2.3/drivers/scsi/: a2091.c a3000.c 
	2.3/fs/affs/: inode.c symlink.c 
	2.3/include/asm-ppc/: io.h 

Log message:
	conflict fixes from import bitkeeper (2.4.0-test11)

Re: head.S error in 2.4.0-test10

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

Hi,

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Glenn Hisdal wrote:

> The file arch/ppc/kernel/head.S has an unterminated comment in line 1609,
> that causes the compilation to fail.
> (ay least this was the case with my copy)

Ken told me already about this, but I forgot to commit it, it's fixed now.

bye, Roman

CVS Update: 2.3

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

CVSROOT:	/cvsroot/linux-apus
Module name:	2.3
Repository:	2.3/arch/ppc/kernel/
Changes by:	zi...@sl....	00/11/26 05:11:31

Modified files:
	2.3/arch/ppc/kernel/: head.S 

Log message:
	close comment