Menu
▾
▴
linuxsh-dev
|
From: Ian da S. <ida...@mv...> - 2001-05-08 16:38:15
|
I posted a patch today that adds support for the SH7751's built-in PCI controller on the 7751 Solution Engine. This patch needs to be applied on top of Dustin's Big Sur/PCI patch. His patch provides all the underlying support for the SH7751's PCI controller. My patch simply extends support to the 7751 Solution Engine. I've been using these patches in my kernel so that I can the ethernet controller, which lies off the PCI bus on the 7751 Solution Engine. Please send me your comments, feedback, etc. Ian. |
|
From: NIIBE Y. <gn...@m1...> - 2001-05-09 06:30:42
|
Ian da Silva wrote: > I posted a patch today that adds support for the SH7751's built-in PCI > controller on the 7751 Solution Engine. This patch needs to be applied > on top of Dustin's Big Sur/PCI patch. His patch provides all the > underlying support for the SH7751's PCI controller. My patch simply > extends support to the 7751 Solution Engine. > > I've been using these patches in my kernel so that I can the ethernet > controller, which lies off the PCI bus on the 7751 Solution Engine. > > Please send me your comments, feedback, etc. Great! Besides, it is very good because it reminds me Dustin's great work. I'll look incorporate your works. My response is so late for Dustin's work. I'm sorry. Last month, I'm bit busy to sync-up standard kernel. I assume that both works is OK for distributed under GPL. I mean, it's OK for you to include the patches to standard kernel, and let people to hack with that. -- |
|
From: NIIBE Y. <gn...@m1...> - 2001-05-09 08:03:16
|
Except irq.c change, the patches are incorporated. -- |
|
From: Jeremy S. <js...@mv...> - 2001-05-12 00:15:11
|
NIIBE Yutaka wrote: > Except irq.c change, the patches are incorporated. > -- > > _______________________________________________ > linuxsh-dev mailing list > lin...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxsh-dev We found a negative side-effect in our patch; the change in include/asm-sh/machvec.h mistakenly causes MACH_SE to be turned off for the older Solution Engine configurations. It seems that only the CF Enabler and STNIC support look at that (everything else should work fine). Maybe we should make it a separate machine type sometime in the future, but for the moment I think the following patch takes care of it: diff -Nu machvec.h{.bak,} --- machvec.h.bak Fri May 11 16:39:32 2001 +++ machvec.h Fri May 11 16:41:07 2001 @@ -91,15 +91,11 @@ #define MACH_DREAMCAST (sh_mv.mv_hw_dreamcast) #define MACH_BIGSUR (sh_mv.mv_hw_bigsur) #else -# ifdef CONFIG_SH_SOLUTION_ENGINE +# if defined(CONFIG_SH_SOLUTION_ENGINE) || \ + defined(CONFIG_SH_7751_SOLUTION_ENGINE) # define MACH_SE 1 # else # define MACH_SE 0 -# endif -# ifdef CONFIG_SH_7751_SOLUTION_ENGINE -# define MACH_SE 1 -# else -# define MACH_SE 0 # endif # ifdef CONFIG_SH_HP600 # define MACH_HP600 1 Would you be able to check that in so pulling CVS source? Thanks! --Jeremy Siegel |
|
From: NIIBE Y. <gn...@m1...> - 2001-05-13 23:35:33
|
Jeremy Siegel wrote: > We found a negative side-effect in our patch; the change in > include/asm-sh/machvec.h mistakenly causes MACH_SE to > be turned off for the older Solution Engine configurations. It > seems that only the CF Enabler and STNIC support look at > that (everything else should work fine). Maybe we should > make it a separate machine type sometime in the future, but > for the moment I think the following patch takes care of it: Thanks a lot. Looking the specification of SolutionEngine 7751, I'd prefer having separate machine vector or I/O routines for that. It looks for me that there's almost no common parts between SolutionEngine 7709A/7750/7750S and 7751. Well, the name is common, I know... ;-) Opinions? -- |
|
From: Jaswinder S. <jas...@3d...> - 2001-05-14 04:09:21
|
Dear Niibe san, > > Looking the specification of SolutionEngine 7751, I'd prefer having > separate machine vector or I/O routines for that. It looks for me > that there's almost no common parts between SolutionEngine > 7709A/7750/7750S and 7751. Well, the name is common, I know... ;-) > > Opinions? > -- I think that there is no need to change machine vector or I/O routines for 7751 . if you do not handle PCI in 7751 it is almost same as 7750. PCIC is additional feature in 7751 but basics are same. I am not happy with new io_se.c , i think there is no need to change in io_se.c for PCIC , please refer to the I/O routines of intel architecture is any thing metioned in it regarding PCI ? all this should be in PCI files . Please refer to the files regarding PCI , which i send you and Kojima-san last year . Thank you, Best Regards, Jaswinder. -- These are my opinions not 3Di. |
|
From: NIIBE Y. <gn...@m1...> - 2001-06-19 23:45:42
|
NIIBE Yutaka wrote: > Looking the specification of SolutionEngine 7751, I'd prefer having > separate machine vector or I/O routines for that. It looks for me > that there's almost no common parts between SolutionEngine > 7709A/7750/7750S and 7751. Well, the name is common, I know... ;-) I'll separate out SolutionEngine 7751 support from 7709A/7750/7750S. As the target SolutionEngine 7751 is different beast, there's no merit to put the support of that target to io-se.c and others. Ian, if you have any opinion or patches, please let me know. -- |
|
From: Jeremy S. <js...@mv...> - 2001-05-16 01:24:41
|
NIIBE Yutaka wrote: > Looking the specification of SolutionEngine 7751, I'd prefer having > separate machine vector or I/O routines for that. It looks for me > that there's almost no common parts between SolutionEngine > 7709A/7750/7750S and 7751. Well, the name is common, I know... ;-) > > Opinions? Yeah, other than the name it's a different beast... I'll talk to my colleague Ian (who knows a lot more about PCI than me!) when he gets back in town; next patch we send up for that we'll look at changing it [unless there's lots of objections on the list!] --Jeremy Siegel |
|
From: Jeremy S. <js...@mv...> - 2001-05-17 00:59:11
Attachments:
iose.df2
|
Oops... I was so focused on the fix below I forgot to include an even more important one... a misplaced bracket in io_se.c (outside an ifdef when it should be in) prevents compilation for the 7709/7750 Solution Engine. The attached patch will fix it (and also moves new variables inside the ifdef, so the warnings about unused variables are reduced.) NIIBE Yutaka wrote: > Jeremy Siegel wrote: > > We found a negative side-effect in our patch; the change in > > include/asm-sh/machvec.h mistakenly causes MACH_SE to > > be turned off for the older Solution Engine configurations. It > > seems that only the CF Enabler and STNIC support look at > > that (everything else should work fine). Maybe we should > > make it a separate machine type sometime in the future, but > > for the moment I think the following patch takes care of it: > > Thanks a lot. |
|
From: Ian da S. <ida...@mv...> - 2001-06-20 01:18:13
|
Niibe, We agree that the 7751 support needs to be separated from the other SolutionEngine boards. It has been on the back of our minds, but we just haven't gotten around to doing it. If you are short of time, we can make the changes; the files at issue are io_se.c, mach_se.c and setup_se.c. Do you think we are missing anything? If you've already done it, we'll pick up your changes. :) By the way, we would like to include sh-ipl+g and sh-ethboot in our distribution. Is that okay with you? Ian and Jeremy. NIIBE Yutaka wrote: > NIIBE Yutaka wrote: > > Looking the specification of SolutionEngine 7751, I'd prefer having > > separate machine vector or I/O routines for that. It looks for me > > that there's almost no common parts between SolutionEngine > > 7709A/7750/7750S and 7751. Well, the name is common, I know... ;-) > > I'll separate out SolutionEngine 7751 support from 7709A/7750/7750S. > As the target SolutionEngine 7751 is different beast, there's no merit > to put the support of that target to io-se.c and others. > > Ian, if you have any opinion or patches, please let me know. > -- > > _______________________________________________ > linuxsh-dev mailing list > lin...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxsh-dev |
|
From: NIIBE Y. <gn...@m1...> - 2001-06-20 01:30:00
|
Ian da Silva wrote: > We agree that the 7751 support needs to be separated from the other > SolutionEngine boards. It has been on the back of our minds, but we just > haven't gotten around to doing it. If you are short of time, we can make > the changes; the files at issue are io_se.c, mach_se.c and setup_se.c. > Do you think we are missing anything? > > If you've already done it, we'll pick up your changes. :) No, I haven't done yet. Please do the changes, we could arrange rw-access of CVS, if you have account on SourceForge. > By the way, we would like to include sh-ipl+g and sh-ethboot in our > distribution. Is that okay with you? Yes, of course. It's Free Software, you know. As I wrote in README, it's under LGPL, but some of code (memcpy and such) are taken from Linux, which is under GPL. I'm not sure the consequence, but my intention is to let it be used in many cases, provided it doesn't break cooperative development of the software. -- |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X