Using Linux 2.6.19 with Xilinx ML405

[Peter Mendham]

Hi Andrei,

Thanks for your reply
> CONFIG_PPC_OCP and ppc_sys_platform_devices related problems are due 
> to the kernel.org tree stopped using the OCP infrastructure in favor 
> of ppc_sys stuff (originally created for Freescale 8xx/8xxx SOCs).
Excellent - thanks for explaining this.  I had wondered whether this was 
the case but didn't want to do anything drastic without understanding 
what was going on.
> What BSP vesion have you selected in the xps? As far as I can tell, 
> linux_2_6_v1_00_a uses the approach similar to 2.6 kernel based 
> MontaVista LSP: "manual" registration of all the devices in 
> arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/virtex.c, static int __init 
> xilinx_platform_init(void). The only exception are 16x50 compatible 
> UARTs, that rely on struct ocp_def core_ocp[] etc.
I had selected linux_2_6_v1_00_a also, I just wasn't sure how "current" 
some of the generated code was.
> At the moment I am doing some rework of our code (includes rebasing 
> the patches against a more-or-less recent kernel.org tree). My plan is 
> to drop both PPC_OCP and ppc_sys, and register all the devices inside 
> xilinx_platform_init(). For Xilinx'es using ppc_sys adds no value but 
> some unneeded complexity. And it seems ppc_sys is no longer 
> used/supported after Freescale 8xx/8xxx SOCs moved to arc/powerpc? 
> Having all the device registration (and references to xparameters.h as 
> well!) in one place IMHO would make it easier to move Xilinx based 
> boards to arc/powerpc (someday).
OK, that is also good to know.  I buy your argument, so I'd like to use 
the "manual" approach.  However, when I tried compiling there was some 
code that expected a ppc_sys_platform_devices (and a ppc_sys_specs).  Am 
I right in thinking that your patch sorts this out?
> Attached is the patch to get rid of both XILINX_OCP and ppc_sys for 
> the Xilinx boards. With this patch applied it should be not so 
> difficult to add the relevant entries to 
> arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/virtex.c by copying them from the EDK generated 
> linux_2_6_v1_00_a BSP. The patch is against 2.6.21-rc4 if it matters.
Brilliant!  Thanks.  The code your patch produces expects there to be an 
8250 compatible UART around.  What happens if I only have a UARTlite?  
What do I need to fill in to a platform_device structure for a 
UARTlite?  I have just moved to 2.6.20 kernel in the hope of using the 
mainline uartlite driver - was this a stupid thing to do?  Do you know 
if I can use it for early serial in the same way as an 8250?

Many thanks for your help,

-- Peter

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.