[PATCH 0/14] at91: factorize soc init and switch to early platform
plagnioj at jcrosoft.com
Thu Apr 28 00:14:40 EDT 2011
On 15:59 Thu 28 Apr , Ryan Mallon wrote:
> On 04/28/2011 02:41 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > On 09:13 Thu 28 Apr , Ryan Mallon wrote:
> >> On 04/26/2011 06:08 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> The following patch series start to factorize the soc init
> >>> and switch gpio and timers to early platform
> >>> diff stat on arm
> >>> 80 files changed, 1690 insertions(+), 2053 deletions(-)
> >> I finally had a chance to test this. On our Snapper 9G20 board
> >> (AT91SAM9G20) the latest linux-next gives me:
> >> Starting kernel ...
> >> Uncompressing Linux... done, booting the kernel.
> >> <5>Linux version 2.6.39-rc4-next-20110427+ (ryan at okiwi) (gcc version 4.4.1 (Sourcery G++ Lite 2010q1-202) ) #850 Thu Apr 28 09:07:43 NZST 2011
> >> CPU: ARM926EJ-S  revision 5 (ARMv5TEJ), cr=00053177
> >> CPU: VIVT data cache, VIVT instruction cache
> >> Machine: Bluewater Systems Snapper 9260/9G20 module
> >> Memory policy: ECC disabled, Data cache writeback
> >> <0>Kernel panic - not syncing: Impossible to detect the CPU type
> >> [<c002fb1c>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xe4) from [<c0230820>] (panic+0x50/0x178)
> >> [<c0230820>] (panic+0x50/0x178) from [<c000d414>] (at91_initialize+0x18/0x20)
> >> [<c000d414>] (at91_initialize+0x18/0x20) from [<c000e298>] (snapper9260_map_io+0xc/0x5c)
> >> [<c000e298>] (snapper9260_map_io+0xc/0x5c) from [<c000d0ec>] (paging_init+0x668/0x728)
> >> [<c000d0ec>] (paging_init+0x668/0x728) from [<c000b5cc>] (setup_arch+0x39c/0x620)
> >> [<c000b5cc>] (setup_arch+0x39c/0x620) from [<c000873c>] (start_kernel+0x6c/0x2c8)
> >> I'll have a better look at this later to see if I can find the problem,
> >> though I suspect the remapping of the AT91_DBGU location is to blame.
> >> What platforms have you tested this on?
> > I already found the issue and fix it
> > git://github.com/at91linux/linux-2.6-at91.git test_cleanup
> Okay, that is working a bit better, not quite booting yet, but a little
> further along :-).
> Couple of bugs I've noticed so far: In board-stamp9g20.c and
> board-sam9g20ek.c you have missed the .init_irq initialisation change
> for the first MACHINE_START. It causes a build failure if either of
> these boards are included.
> Also at91x40 (e.g. board-eb01.c) does not get converted? I don't known
> anything about this SoC. Is this intentional?
Yes it's intentionnal
this is a nommu soc and with just timer and clock driver so I do not update it
and this soc does not have a DBGU so until we have a real implementation it's
stay as now
More information about the linux-arm-kernel