Re: Would setting the CONFIG_RTC option break the powerpc kernel on your machine ?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 05:48:22PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 09:33:15AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 05:26:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 09:10:42AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > Also, the todc code knows about many RTC chips, among them, the MC146818
> > > > > seems to be the one used by the rtc.h stuff, and seems to be a generic
> > > > > legacy RTC chip or something. he one i have, builtin the VIA VT8231
> > > > > southbridge is said to be called VT82887, altough i have no docs of
> > > > > those, but the header files found in 2.6 concord. But i seem to have
> > > > > some additional DATE_ALARM, MONTH_ALARM and CENTURY_FIELD registers not
> > > > > found int the MC146818 header file.
> > > >
> > > > I appologize since I ramble a bit too much. For 2.4, the best fix is
> > > > (1) above. For 2.6 however, it should be possible to remove chrp_time.c
> > > > and use todc_time.c instead (it is self-contained, wrt nvram read/write,
> > > > iirc) and do some sub-casing to pick the right RTC chip code to use.
> > > > For example on PReP we still case between the two different chips, and
> > > > just call todc_init (iirc) with a different param. Or something along
> > > > those lines.
> > >
> > > Ok, i have looked more, and the MC146818 is ok for my box. don't know
> > > about other chrp boxes though.
> > >
> > > There is also the todc code in the 2.4 tree though, so it should also be
> > > possible to do it this way, or would it not ?
> > It would be possible, but it would be more intrusive for a stable
> > series.
> Ok, i will do it the rtc.h way then, and see what happens.
> > > Anyway, i will submit a patch against 2.4.23 (from linuxppc_2_4, but it
> > > may also include the pegasos patches Ben has had no time to checkin)
> > > tomorrow.
> > >
> > > Next thing i need is a solution for builtin initrd's of bigger sizes.
> > > 1.4Mo seem to work, but 2.2Mo break somehow (no init found, but if the
> > > initrd is uncompressed to some partition, it work fine).
> > which code subset under arch/ppc/boot does pegasos use?
> it is mostly a chrp, except for a few lines patch needed for things as
> pci indirection and other such.
> > Does it really have OpenFirmware?
> Yeah, and i even have the source of it (not free software though). OF
> coding is a nightmare though.
> > I've booted large ramdisks in the past from the
> > arch/ppc/boot/simple/ stuff (And prep/) but I believe that chrp/pmac
> > place the initrd at a location high in memory, have holes to deal with,
> Mmm, indeed the initrd is moved to RAM_END - initrd_size by
> arch/ppc/boot/chrp/main.c:chrpboot, where RAM_END is defined as 64<<20
> (which is 64Mo and i have 128Mo). the pmac chrp boot uses only 16<<20.
Which introduces a (potential) problem of the initrd growing down into
the kernel, for very large initrds. I don't recall why it's done this
> Mmm, maybe arch/ppc/kernel/setup.c:plafrom_init does contain only stuff
> for prep, not chrp, not sure, chrp_init.c in chrp_setup.c does use r6
> and r7 for determining the initrd location and size.
One potential problem is that perhaps chrp hasn't been updated to prefer
(or the boot/ code updated) to use BI_INITRD stuff, ala simple/ and
prep/, and perhaps there's still someone assuming that it's being passed
in start/end, not start/size information.
> Actually, i don't really know enough about this to fix this issue alone,
> i have no knowledge of the holes you speak about for example :((
The holes would be in OF itself. IIRC this is true of some oldworld
pmacs for example.
> > etc, etc, while simple/ and prep/ (more or less) just ignore the
> > firmware once it's up.
> Mmm I didn't know about simple, what subarches use that one exactly ?
Everything that's not a pmac or a chrp (I've used it on a non-OF PReP
before, and the code is awful close).