Subject: old machines (fwd)

From: Matthew Wilcox <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:39:57 +0100 (BST)

Forwarded message:
>From [email-masked]  Mon May 26 11:29:01 1997
From: Matthew Wilcox <[email-masked]>
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
Subject: old machines
To: [email-masked]
Date: 	Mon, 26 May 1997 10:52:43 +0100 (BST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

I found the 2.0.30 patch set last night (I was looking in the wrong place.
mea culpa) and installed it into a copy of the standard tree.  Patch went
fine except that it tries to patch a file called something like
kernel.syms, which doesn't exist.  So I skipped it.

Is it supposed to be able to compile for non-RPC machines?  Just
wondering, since the very first file compiled fails with an error.  Also,
no distinction is made between ARM2 & ARM3, despite the fact that ARM3 can
SWP and ARM2 cannot.  Likewise, the config.in does not query for machine
type and assumes RPC.  I added the ability to query, and autoset the CPU
type based on machine type, but I'm not sure of the value of submitting
this patch back if 2.0.30 isn't designed to compile on these machines. 
Don't take this personally, Russell, I do appreciate the work you've put
into Linux, but if I don't report the problems that I find, they might
never get fixed.

---

From: Philip Blundell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:26:59 +0100 (BST)

> kernel.syms, which doesn't exist.  So I skipped it.

You can ignore that - Russ goofed when he made the patch.  kernel.syms is
generated during the build.

> Is it supposed to be able to compile for non-RPC machines?  Just

Yes.

> no distinction is made between ARM2 & ARM3, despite the fact that ARM3 can

What's the error?  I don't think ARM2 is supposed at the moment, though I
imagine it wouldn't be hard.  Does any of the assembler actually use SWP?

> type and assumes RPC.  I added the ability to query, and autoset the CPU

I think the idea was that you configure this by editing the makefile.
Having it in config.in is better though.

> this patch back if 2.0.30 isn't designed to compile on these machines. 

Please do send the patch.

p.

---

From: Philip Blundell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:26:59 +0100 (BST)

Yes.

p.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:49:19 +0100 (BST)

> imagine it wouldn't be hard.  Does any of the assembler actually use SWP?

I take it that you did a make config first?

The Linux kernel does support ARM2!  It is grouped in with ARM3, but the
kernel *always* autodetects the CPU type and selects the right-way-to-do-it.
Eg. on the ARM3, it will use the SWP instruction, but on the ARM2 it will
use a protected LDR/STR.

This allows the number of kernels available (and the problems involved with
generating/maintaining them) to be reduced, making everybodies lives easier.

The same method is used on the ARM6/7/StrongARM kernel.

> Having it in config.in is better though.

It *absolutely* cannot be in config.in - too many things in the makefiles
and config files depend on the machine type to be set *before* make config
is run, eg. setting up the right sub-architecture directories etc.

> Please do send the patch.

I'll have a look at it...
   _____
  |_____| ------------------------------------------------- ---+---+-
  |   |       Russell King      [email-masked]         --- ---
  | | | | http://whirligig.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~rmk92/home.html  /  /  |
  | +-+-+                                                     --- -+-
  /   |               THE developer of ARM Linux              |+| /|\
 /  | | |      *  who wishes that he was in Hong Kong  *      ---  |
    +-+-+ -------------------------------------------------  /\\\  |

---

From: Philip Blundell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:10:14 +0100 (BST)

> is run, eg. setting up the right sub-architecture directories etc.

I guess there may be some truth in this.

BTW, Russell, have you done that disclaimer for the FSF yet?

p.

---

From: Garan Jenkin MSS <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 16:15:07 +0100

Has anyone compiled a kernel suitable for the A4? i.e. no scsi but just like
a5k. ethernet support not required either i suppose.  anyone?

Thanks.

P.S. did someone set up an ftp site with the contents of the cd (or later) on?

---

From: Alan Cox <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 19:56:14 +0100 (BST)

> P.S. did someone set up an ftp site with the contents of the cd (or later) on?

Most of it is on ftp.uk.linux.org