linux-apus-devel

CVS Update: 2.2

[Alan b. <ala...@us...>]

CVSROOT:	/cvsroot/linux-apus
Module name:	2.2
Repository:	2.2/arch/ppc/kernel/
Changes by:	ala...@sl....	00/11/22 03:58:18

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

Log message:
	Multiple changes :
	
	Insertion of the MOL instructions and routines.
	Insertion of APUS_PROGRESS routine and calls

CVS Update: 2.2

[Alan b. <ala...@us...>]

CVSROOT:	/cvsroot/linux-apus
Module name:	2.2
Repository:	2.2/arch/ppc/kernel/
Changes by:	ala...@sl....	00/11/22 04:00:18

Modified files:
	2.2/arch/ppc/kernel/: Tag: mol-branch ppc_ksyms.c 

Log message:
	Insertion of mol_interface attribution and some ppc code

CVS Update: 2.2

[Alan b. <ala...@us...>]

CVSROOT:	/cvsroot/linux-apus
Module name:	2.2
Repository:	2.2/arch/ppc/mm/
Changes by:	ala...@sl....	00/11/22 04:01:44

Modified files:
	2.2/arch/ppc/mm/: Tag: mol-branch init.c 

Log message:
	added this MOL-related change
	
	#ifndef CONFIG_MOL
	#define NO_RELOAD_HTAB 1 /* change in kernel/head.S too! */
	#endif

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!)

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

CVS Update: 2.2

[Michel D. <mda...@us...>]

CVSROOT:	/cvsroot/linux-apus
Module name:	2.2
Repository:	2.2/arch/ppc/kernel/
Changes by:	mda...@sl....	00/12/07 18:31:08

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

Log message:
	build fix

CVS Update: 2.2

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

CVSROOT:	/cvsroot/linux-apus
Module name:	2.2
Repository:	2.2/arch/m68k/amiga/
Changes by:	kent@usw-pr-cvs1.	01/01/12 06:13:11

Modified files:
	2.2/arch/m68k/amiga/: amisound.c amisound.c Stop keyboard beeps. 
	                      Force an early return from amiga_mksound() 
	                      if audio dma ch. 2 in use. 

Log message:
	

CVS Update: 2.2

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

CVSROOT:	/cvsroot/linux-apus
Module name:	2.2
Repository:	2.2/drivers/video/
Changes by:	kent@usw-pr-cvs1.	01/02/04 00:49:29

Modified files:
	2.2/drivers/video/: virgefb.c virgefb.c Supports initialization 
	                    (mo more -v boot option), mode changing with 
	                    fbset. Still more to do. 
Added files:
	2.2/drivers/video/: virgefb.h virgefb.h Should be merged with 
	                    other S3 header files. 

Log message:
	

Re: CVS Update: 2.2

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

Ken Tyler wrote:

> Modified files:
>         2.2/drivers/video/: virgefb.c virgefb.c Supports initialization
>                             (mo more -v boot option), mode changing wit=
h
>                             fbset. Still more to do.

This is great Ken, but the wrong module ;)

Such development should have taken place in 2.3/4 for a long time IMO.


--=20
Earthling Michel D=E4nzer (MrCooper)    \   Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) de=
veloper
CS student, Free Software enthusiast   \        XFree86 and DRI project m=
ember

Re: CVS Update: 2.2

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

On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Michel D=E4nzer wrote:

> > Modified files:
> >         2.2/drivers/video/: virgefb.c virgefb.c Supports initialization
> >                             (mo more -v boot option), mode changing wit=
h
> >                             fbset. Still more to do.
>=20
> This is great Ken, but the wrong module ;)
>=20
> Such development should have taken place in 2.3/4 for a long time IMO.

Hello,

I have a 2.3/4 version of virgefb that was keeping sync with the 2.2
version but it's slipped behind a bit, I'll blame my cvs stuff up on the
2.3/4 tree.  When I get 2.3/4 up again the virgefb will be updated and
commited.

Ken.

  =20

Re: CVS Update: 2.2

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

hi,

> > Modified files:
> >         2.2/drivers/video/: virgefb.c virgefb.c Supports initialization
> >                             (mo more -v boot option), mode changing with
> >                             fbset. Still more to do.
> 
> This is great Ken, but the wrong module ;)
> 
> Such development should have taken place in 2.3/4 for a long time IMO.

:-)

whilst 2.4 is still having problems, many people want a working
environment. Of course, 2.2 should be 2.2.17 or somesuch  ;-)
 
alan

2.4 vs. 2.2

[Michel <mic...@ii...>]

Alan Buxey wrote:

> > > Modified files:
> > >         2.2/drivers/video/: virgefb.c virgefb.c Supports initializa=
tion
> > >                             (mo more -v boot option), mode changing=
 with
> > >                             fbset. Still more to do.
> >
> > This is great Ken, but the wrong module ;)
> >
> > Such development should have taken place in 2.3/4 for a long time IMO.
>=20
> :-)
>=20
> whilst 2.4 is still having problems, many people want a working
> environment.

I perfectly understand users who stick to 2.2 for now when they have foun=
d out
that 2.4 doesn't meet their needs yet.

But development must take place in 2.4 or we will sooner rather than late=
r
have a (mostly) working but hopelessly outdated kernel and an up-to-date =
but
broken one.

In order to iron out the issues in 2.4, we need more people to test it an=
d
report problems. And to achieve this we need new features in 2.4 exclusiv=
ely.
That's why I think putting stuff like this in 2.2 is a bad idea.


--=20
Earthling Michel D=E4nzer (MrCooper)    \   Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) de=
veloper
CS student, Free Software enthusiast   \        XFree86 and DRI project m=
ember

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.2

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

On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Michel D=E4nzer wrote:
> In order to iron out the issues in 2.4, we need more people to test it =
and
> report problems. And to achieve this we need new features in 2.4 exclus=
ively.
> That's why I think putting stuff like this in 2.2 is a bad idea.

Right! Furthermore Alan refuses stuff for 2.2 if it's not in 2.4 already,=
 for
the exact same reason.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m6=
8k.org

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: 2.4 vs. 2.2

[Frank R. G. P. <pe...@he...>]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 05:37:39PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> I perfectly understand users who stick to 2.2 for now when they have found out
> that 2.4 doesn't meet their needs yet.

Only that there is the shared memory problem that prevents burning CDs in 
2.2.

> But development must take place in 2.4 or we will sooner rather than later
> have a (mostly) working but hopelessly outdated kernel and an up-to-date but
> broken one.

I agree. 
> 
> In order to iron out the issues in 2.4, we need more people to test it and
> report problems. And to achieve this we need new features in 2.4 exclusively.

Problems: 

- Internal serial hangs when IDE is active (probably unsolvable, it is worse
  in 2.2)
- Internal parallel does not work (garbage arrives at printer)
- MFCIII driver does not compile
- kernel crashes (reboot) when using ppp for more than 10 Minutes and heavy 
  transfer over serial.
- no acceleration for virge
- problems with BVision
- Onboard SCSI of CyberStormPPC does not work.

> That's why I think putting stuff like this in 2.2 is a bad idea.

Backports are OK, perhaps even mandatory though.
-- 
Dipl. Informatikingenieur ETH  Frank Petzold  <pe...@he...>
               ceterum censeo parvomollem esse delendam.

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.2

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

hi,


> - Internal serial hangs when IDE is active (probably unsolvable, it is worse
>   in 2.2)

worse, really? I only have an interal serial and IDE... get 3800b/s
through my serial when downloading

> - Internal parallel does not work (garbage arrives at printer)
> - MFCIII driver does not compile
> - kernel crashes (reboot) when using ppp for more than 10 Minutes and heavy 
>   transfer over serial.

ouch. theres certainly no problem of this sort under 2.2 -> Having
downloaded 125Mb over the past 3 days without a single reboot I know this.

> - no acceleration for virge

thats WIP. 

> - problems with BVision

what type of problem? we need details.

> - Onboard SCSI of CyberStormPPC does not work.

same as 2.2 - want to write some code?
 
alan

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.2

[Frank R. G. P. <pe...@he...>]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 01:02:42PM +0000, Alan Buxey wrote:
> > - problems with BVision
> 
> what type of problem? we need details.

Not from me. I have a CV64/3D. I was just summarizing averything I know of.
-- 
Dipl. Informatikingenieur ETH  Frank Petzold  <pe...@he...>
               ceterum censeo parvomollem esse delendam.

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.2

[Robert R. <ro...@pl...>]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:50:21PM +0100, Frank Rudolf Georg Petzold wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 01:02:42PM +0000, Alan Buxey wrote:
> > > - problems with BVision
> > 
> > what type of problem? we need details.
> 
> Not from me. I have a CV64/3D. I was just summarizing averything I know of.
 BVision doesn't cause problems.. it's PCI and XF4 that causes them =o)))


-- 
 Robert Ramiega  | ro...@pl...  IRC: _Jedi_ | Don't underestimate 
 UIN: 13201047   | http://www.plukwa.net/         | the power of Source

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.2

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

On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:55:17PM +0100, Robert Ramiega wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 02:50:21PM +0100, Frank Rudolf Georg Petzold wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 01:02:42PM +0000, Alan Buxey wrote:
> > > > - problems with BVision
> > > 
> > > what type of problem? we need details.
> > 
> > Not from me. I have a CV64/3D. I was just summarizing averything I know of.
>  BVision doesn't cause problems.. it's PCI and XF4 that causes them =o)))

Erm, ...

We should maybe fix PCI in the 2.4 kernel any idea ofwhat the problem is ?

(well i guess there were lot's of changes in the 2.4 pci code with regard to
the 2.2 one, or the time Michel wrote the PCI support).

There will nextly be a 4.0.2 bugfix succesor, which should fix the bugs in XF
4.0.2, and should be packaged almost immediately by branden i think, which
should fix the use of non-PCI (or broken PCI) 2.4 kernels.

But best would be if someone could test current cvs XF4 on a broken PCI
kernel, or maybe even better the XF4 from the 4.0.2 branch.

Maybe i should setup a cross compiler on my box here at work and compile one
for people to test. Any experience with cross compiling X ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.2

[Michel <mic...@ii...>]

Sven LUTHER wrote:

> We should maybe fix PCI in the 2.4 kernel any idea ofwhat the problem i=
s ?

The PPC PCI code has changed heavily and we are probably missing some kin=
d of
initialization. Like setting up bus resources, etc.


--=20
Earthling Michel D=E4nzer (MrCooper)    \   Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) de=
veloper
CS student, Free Software enthusiast   \        XFree86 and DRI project m=
ember

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.2

[Michel <mic...@ii...>]

Alan Buxey wrote:

> > - kernel crashes (reboot) when using ppp for more than 10 Minutes and
> >   heavy transfer over serial.
>=20
> ouch. theres certainly no problem of this sort under 2.2 -> Having
> downloaded 125Mb over the past 3 days without a single reboot I know th=
is.

We fixed such a problem in late 2.1 or early 2.2, maybe the fix got lost =
in
our 2.4?


--=20
Earthling Michel D=E4nzer (MrCooper)    \   Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) de=
veloper
CS student, Free Software enthusiast   \        XFree86 and DRI project m=
ember

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.2

[Frank R. G. P. <pe...@he...>]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 04:25:46PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> We fixed such a problem in late 2.1 or early 2.2, maybe the fix got lost in
> our 2.4?

Like the fix for the parallel driver? AFAIK, the fix was done in the generic
code, not in the amiga specific parport_amiga. But as I have no revision
history of that time, I can't have a look.
-- 
Dipl. Informatikingenieur ETH  Frank Petzold  <pe...@he...>
               ceterum censeo parvomollem esse delendam.

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.2

[Michel <mic...@ii...>]

Frank Rudolf Georg Petzold wrote:

> > We fixed such a problem in late 2.1 or early 2.2, maybe the fix got l=
ost
> > in our 2.4?
>=20
> Like the fix for the parallel driver?

No, the one about ppp panicking the kernel on 'heavy' traffic (did I misq=
uote?
Sorry if yes).


--=20
Earthling Michel D=E4nzer (MrCooper)    \   Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) de=
veloper
CS student, Free Software enthusiast   \        XFree86 and DRI project m=
ember

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.2

[Frank R. G. P. <pe...@he...>]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 05:54:06PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> Frank Rudolf Georg Petzold wrote:
> 
> > > We fixed such a problem in late 2.1 or early 2.2, maybe the fix got lost
> > > in our 2.4?
> > 
> > Like the fix for the parallel driver?
> 
> No, the one about ppp panicking the kernel on 'heavy' traffic (did I misquote?
> Sorry if yes).

I was meaning: The fix got lost like the fix for parallel?
-- 
Dipl. Informatikingenieur ETH  Frank Petzold  <pe...@he...>
               ceterum censeo parvomollem esse delendam.

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.2

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

Hi,

On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Frank Rudolf Georg Petzold wrote:

> - Internal parallel does not work (garbage arrives at printer)
> - MFCIII driver does not compile

For these problems you might want to ask on the linux-m68k list or Joerg
Dorchain (jo...@do...) directly, as he is still the maintainer of
these drivers.

bye, Roman

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.2

[Michel <mic...@ii...>]

Frank Rudolf Georg Petzold wrote:

> > I perfectly understand users who stick to 2.2 for now when they have =
found
> > out that 2.4 doesn't meet their needs yet.
>=20
> Only that there is the shared memory problem that prevents burning CDs =
in
> 2.2.

Yes, that's just one of the reasons why all users really want 2.4 . Most =
of
them just don't know yet. ;)


> - Internal parallel does not work (garbage arrives at printer)

Robert says it kind of works, can you two work that out please?


> > That's why I think putting stuff like this in 2.2 is a bad idea.
>=20
> Backports are OK, perhaps even mandatory though.

Maybe, but this topic didn't start from a backport but from new developme=
nt
done in the 2.2 tree. Bug fixes are important, backports should be option=
al
and low priority. After all, each backport keeps more users from upgradin=
g.


PS: Can you please submit bugs for the problems you experience? Thanks.

--=20
Earthling Michel D=E4nzer (MrCooper)    \   Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) de=
veloper
CS student, Free Software enthusiast   \        XFree86 and DRI project m=
ember