From: David McCullough (davidm@snapgear.com)
Date: Mon Dec 10 2001 - 18:45:42 EST
Jivin Tom Walsh lays it down ...
> David McCullough wrote:
> >
> > Jivin Jody Pearson lays it down ...
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Got the latest uClinux 2.4.x from CVS.
> > >
> > > It seems that the PalmV directory structure under
> > >
> > > ${UCLINUX}/linux/arch/m68knommu/platform/68EZ328/
> > >
> > > is missing.
> > >
> > > I tried to replicate it from
> > >
> > > ${UCLINUX}/linux/arch/m68knommu/platform/68328/pilot
> >
> > There is no Palm support in the 2.4 tree yet. If you want something that
> > works I would go with the the 2.0 kernel. On the other hand it should not
> > be a major task to get 2.4 going.
> >
> > I believe romfs.h is how the Palm version used to include the rom
> > filesystem into the kernel. There are much cleaner ways to do this (IMO)
> > using objcopy and friends.
> >
>
> Hello David,
>
> I can see that this may become a recurring problem in the future with
> newer platforms only being supported in the 2.4 and not 2.0 kernels.
> Also, older platforms not being supported yet by the 2.4 kernel.. IMO,
> the solution that I had proposed a while back about a ./linux &
> ./linux-2.4.x directory under the vendor/{VENDOR}/{PLATFORM} tree could
> be used to correct for this?
>
> We could modify the scripts so that if a ./linux dir (or ./linux-2.4.x
> dir) does not exist under that platform, it would announce that "this
> platform is not yet supported under this kernel version". That type of
> directory structure also makes it possible to keep two seperate sets of
> rc, config.vendor, config.linux, etc. files in those dirs. I had
> modified the scripts to symlink these files under the {platform} dir
> based upon the version of kernel to be used.
I think you are right, we need a mechanism here.
The problem is that "make config" is not really flexible enough to allow
options to be easily dynamically adjusted based on selection of
vendor/platform and kernel.
I have looked into this in the past so that I could disable uClibc for
platforms that don't support it, likewise kernels and even applications
(which is a little easier).
The best we could do (I think) is a post "Save&Exit" check that warns the
user things may get rugged :-)
What do others think ?
Cheers,
Davidm
--
David McCullough: Ph: +61 7 3435 2815 http://www.SnapGear.com
davidm@snapgear.com Fx: +61 7 3891 3630 825 Stanley St., W'gabba QLD 4102, Oz
This message resent by the uclinux-dev@uclinux.org list server http://www.uClinux.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 19 2002 - 13:20:35 EDT