On 10/14/2011 07:05 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 10:54 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
>
>> Note that the GuruPlug ships with a broken uboot, which uses the wrong
>> machine identifier. To use a mainline kernel, you must munge the kernel
>> machine ID or update the GuruPlug's uboot.
>>
> Ooh, good to know.
>
>
>> The phrase "the kernel we're working with" caught my eye. Which
kernel
>> are we talking about?
>>
> I'm specifically thinking of David Marlin's kernel as referenced here:
>
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/Fedora_ARM_Kernels
>
>
>> (I've heard but have not verified that the Kirkwood and OMAP patch sets
>> used to be pretty much mutually-exclusive; I haven't tried to build a
>> unified kernel and hope this has been fixed).
>>
> Yuck. I know David has been endeavoring to make his changes mesh easily
> with additional parties adding their own pet board to the SRPM. Most of
> our systems are omap and tegra based so we haven't seriously looked into
> kirkwood support. If somebody wants to add kirkwood support they should
> bear in mind your warning about the broken uboot.
>
I'm pretty sure that Kirkwood support required for the SheevaPlug has
been in mainline since at least 2.6.35, possibly earlier. Whether OMAP
patches break this, I don't know.
In fact, Kirkwood is one of the few SoCs that has complete support for
all of the extras, too, in the mainline kernel, too (e.g. crypto engine).
Someone built a 2.6.39 kernel for kirkwood (Dreamplug) by adding a
couple of patches to one of my earlier kernel SRPMs (which was also
tested on Panda/OMAP), but when we tried it on a 2.6.40 (3.0-based)
kernel SRPM the resultant image failed to boot.
I can probably dig up those packages if anyone who has a kirkwood system
wants to work on it.
d.marlin
=========