linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Crosstools for MALTA MIPS in little endian

To: "Ralf Baechle" <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: Crosstools for MALTA MIPS in little endian
From: "Kishore K" <hellokishore@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:29:10 +0530
Cc: "Shyamal Sadanshio" <shyamal.sadanshio@gmail.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, "Nigel Stephens" <nigel@mips.com>
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=D9gxtyxH4rWX/un+4QuGDzKNRru5/zLKzOXp9JMoDala5/Hp1DHx6ERAPEz/JvVlLIzntp9g+NFsRgFw8RWhc0dwHbdYmVG7sNEcqee2bUVxarXm5ocWQ5Fw5y5ZDms7IfITcL9+qUXV3VjF2BZLEiPgNfyX7Qz6txArYfLDzGI=
In-reply-to: <20060426221823.GC21670@linux-mips.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <3857255c0604210808y1208045by3449b003b4b2ffea@mail.gmail.com> <4448F638.9060502@mips.com> <3857255c0604260145i65356e12w89c6667756cddd3c@mail.gmail.com> <20060426221254.GA21670@linux-mips.org> <20060426221823.GC21670@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org


On 4/27/06, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:12:54PM +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote:

> In case you're using the default configuration file, it's set to
> MIPS32R1 but the 4Kc is an R1 processor.  Are you sure you really have a
> 4Kc and not a 4Kec?  The latter is an R2 processor.

Argh.  I meant:

In case you're using the default configuration file, it's set to
MIPS32R2 but the 4Kc is an R1 processor.  Are you sure you really have a
4Kc and not a 4Kec?  The latter is an R2 processor.


  Ralf

I configured the kernel as required for 4Kc, but could not bring up the board. The configuration file is enclosed along with this mail (configured for big endian). As I mentioned in the other thread, the board comes up, when I replace arch/mips/mips-boards/generic/pci.c file in 2.6.16 kernel with the file from 2.6.10 with the appropriate changes required, to pci.c file. But, I am not sure, whether my approach is correct and what is going wrong with 2.6.16 kernel. Currently, I am looking into it. If any of you have idea, please let me know.

thanks,
--kishore



Attachment: config
Description: Binary data

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>