OESF | ELSI | pdaXrom | OpenZaurus | Zaurus Themes | Community Links | Ibiblio

IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Where We Are Now!, Possible change of direction
tux
post Oct 23 2007, 02:45 AM
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 12-August 03
From: Leeds, UK
Member No.: 346



cool.gif The recent comments about the use of the angstrom kernels and the Titchylinux rootfs raise a few questions. I mean the fact that the kernel is EABI and the system is OABI. rolleyes.gif One suggestion has been to use the armel rootfs that is mentioned in the sound thread.

However, another direction has shown up in the C1000 and Debian thread. biggrin.gif

Here is the link that scottlfa gave: Pokylinux 2.6.21 Kernels. By the way his post gives very clear steps to setting up debian on the C1000, presumably adaptable to the 860 and 700 series? biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

I've had the Pokylinux site bookmarked for a while but not had the time to look more closely. (I think there is a Pokylinux thread somewhere. unsure.gif) The site is easy to navigate and all the files are easily accessible. The documentation seems fairly clear as well. It should be easy to download and set up their version of the development environment. Those who would like to roll their own kernels have clear instructions on obtaining the files ansd setting up the environment. (A bit of a contrast to another site we know! sad.gif )

It seems quite a promising site in lots of ways. For example: if I flash the 2.621 kernel for my 3200 and follow the steps for getting the modules in the right place, I should have a working Titchy without the angstrom kernel. cool.gif Presumably the kernel and rootfs architecture should now match. Would this solve some of the problems with multimedia? (I must try it!) There are also rootfs files on that site. What would happen with those? What about the PokyLinux distribution? That is for some other brave soul to try! smile.gif

Hope to see some suggestions/comments when I get back from the real world! cool.gif

But I think it is well worth a good look round! cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
koen
post Oct 23 2007, 02:53 AM
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1,014
Joined: 4-January 05
From: Enschede, The Netherlands
Member No.: 6,107



Poky kernels are also EABI and built with OpenEmbedded, so you might as well face the fact that you all need OE to get your zaurusses to do something usefull with kernel 2.6
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jpmatrix
post Oct 23 2007, 03:18 AM
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 1,019
Joined: 15-February 05
From: France
Member No.: 6,477



yeah i tried poky already some months ago, and it looked very similar to angstrom
the main problem are that packages were incompatible between angstrom and poky (as said by poky developpers - "not supported"), although i tried some and they were working... (for example i had bluetooth working).
and there was little packages available too when i tried it.
but with poky installed, your zaurus looks quite like an actual pda, with dates, contacts and so on. so it looks promising for people looking for a PDA wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tux
post Oct 23 2007, 10:47 AM
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 12-August 03
From: Leeds, UK
Member No.: 346



QUOTE(koen @ Oct 23 2007, 11:53 AM) *
Poky kernels are also EABI and built with OpenEmbedded, so you might as well face the fact that you all need OE to get your zaurusses to do something usefull with kernel 2.6

cool.gif What a disappointment! I thought there might be a shortcut there. sad.gif

Please correct me if I am wrong here but I thought that it didn't matter what build system was used to produce a kernel. What matters is what choices are set for the build process to follow. Assuming that is true, then the bitbake system would produce an OABI kernel and packages if the options were set for that as opposed to the setup you use, would it not. unsure.gif

For that matter any build system could surely have the options/switches set to produce either EABI code or OABI code as required? smile.gif

Anyway, to get back to the point of my first post, it looks like I am going to have to wait for a fully built mainstream Debian armel system or find/build an OABI version of the kernel. What build system to use and which kernel source to start with is a matter for further consideration.

Why do I want that? TitchyLinux gives me a system which uses the apt-get install root just like my desktops. All, well almost all, the packages that run on my desktop machines are available through apt-get. Those packages that aren't available can be compiled, by me, from the tars from the developers site, just like my desktops. I can use the same development environment that my desktop uses.

What is missing for me? At the moment the multimedia is problematic. I can live without that, especially since there appear to be ways to sort it out. Why is there a multimedia problem: apparently because the kernels we have available are EABI and the normal Debian arm is OABI. Well that will be cured eventually. smile.gif

As I said above there are two routes: wait for the Debian armel branch to be fully developed or get/build a kernel for the presently fully developed Debian arm system. Whichever comes first doesn't matter. biggrin.gif

I suspect that the OABI kernel will be available first: I'll happily use it and equally happily transfer to the armel version when it is completed. biggrin.gif



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Meanie
post Oct 23 2007, 04:08 PM
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 2,808
Joined: 21-March 05
From: Sydney, Australia
Member No.: 6,686



QUOTE(tux @ Oct 24 2007, 04:47 AM) *
QUOTE(koen @ Oct 23 2007, 11:53 AM) *
Poky kernels are also EABI and built with OpenEmbedded, so you might as well face the fact that you all need OE to get your zaurusses to do something usefull with kernel 2.6

cool.gif What a disappointment! I thought there might be a shortcut there. sad.gif

Please correct me if I am wrong here but I thought that it didn't matter what build system was used to produce a kernel. What matters is what choices are set for the build process to follow. Assuming that is true, then the bitbake system would produce an OABI kernel and packages if the options were set for that as opposed to the setup you use, would it not. unsure.gif

For that matter any build system could surely have the options/switches set to produce either EABI code or OABI code as required? smile.gif

Anyway, to get back to the point of my first post, it looks like I am going to have to wait for a fully built mainstream Debian armel system or find/build an OABI version of the kernel. What build system to use and which kernel source to start with is a matter for further consideration.

Why do I want that? TitchyLinux gives me a system which uses the apt-get install root just like my desktops. All, well almost all, the packages that run on my desktop machines are available through apt-get. Those packages that aren't available can be compiled, by me, from the tars from the developers site, just like my desktops. I can use the same development environment that my desktop uses.

What is missing for me? At the moment the multimedia is problematic. I can live without that, especially since there appear to be ways to sort it out. Why is there a multimedia problem: apparently because the kernels we have available are EABI and the normal Debian arm is OABI. Well that will be cured eventually. smile.gif

As I said above there are two routes: wait for the Debian armel branch to be fully developed or get/build a kernel for the presently fully developed Debian arm system. Whichever comes first doesn't matter. biggrin.gif

I suspect that the OABI kernel will be available first: I'll happily use it and equally happily transfer to the armel version when it is completed. biggrin.gif



the problem you have is not whether it is a EABI or OABI kernel. the kernel 2.6 just does not 100% support the zaurus hardware yet. some features are just not working yet.
as far as the packages are concerned, both armel debian and angstrom are build using OE, so you might as well bite the bullet and do what Koen said and use OE if you want to use debian armel. OE is just a build system which is supposed to make configuration and patching easier for you since it automates most of that. you can use your own crosscompiler or use OE to build one for you. it is just a matter of what you prefer. the end result will be a compiled kernel either way as long as you got all the required patches. OE can be configured to build other things too. It is just badly/inadequately documented and requires a steeper learning curve to get started with than rolling your own. however, it is conceivable that you will save some time down the road when doing further updating and patching... The OE stuff can help in streamlining development and building, but it is not perfect and has areas that aren't ideal. It is a tool like any others that have their positives and negatives...


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Capn_Fish
post Oct 23 2007, 04:29 PM
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 2,350
Joined: 30-July 06
Member No.: 10,575



QUOTE(koen @ Oct 23 2007, 05:53 AM) *
you all need OE to get your zaurusses to do something usefull with kernel 2.6

So you are trying to convince me that my Zaurus, which I use for about 80% of my computing, and which is running a 2.6 kernel, is useless?

EDIT: It's not running Angstrom/OZ, either, and last time I tried to run Angstrom on it, it wouldn't boot. I guess having a paperweight must be much more useful than having a device that I can code, browse the web, check e-mail, and compile on in my pocket...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chero
post Oct 23 2007, 10:01 PM
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 1,141
Joined: 22-April 04
From: Belgium
Member No.: 2,962



QUOTE(Capn_Fish @ Oct 24 2007, 02:29 AM) *
QUOTE(koen @ Oct 23 2007, 05:53 AM) *
you all need OE to get your zaurusses to do something usefull with kernel 2.6

So you are trying to convince me that my Zaurus, which I use for about 80% of my computing, and which is running a 2.6 kernel, is useless?

EDIT: It's not running Angstrom/OZ, either, and last time I tried to run Angstrom on it, it wouldn't boot. I guess having a paperweight must be much more useful than having a device that I can code, browse the web, check e-mail, and compile on in my pocket...


DELETED (In fact I hate "mine is bigger than yours" discussions. It's a road to nowhere)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cortez
post Oct 24 2007, 12:35 AM
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 376
Joined: 18-March 04
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 2,380



I think it's worthwhile to check if the problem is related to OABI vs EABI or not. I removed the dust of my Poky build system, and it's building a cross-toolchain as we speak, and hopefully a OABI kernel after that. We'll see...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tux
post Oct 24 2007, 01:11 AM
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 12-August 03
From: Leeds, UK
Member No.: 346



QUOTE(cortez @ Oct 24 2007, 09:35 AM) *
I think it's worthwhile to check if the problem is related to OABI vs EABI or not. I removed the dust of my Poky build system, and it's building a cross-toolchain as we speak, and hopefully a OABI kernel after that. We'll see...

cool.gif Thanks cortez, hope that it all goes smoothly. Please post your impressions of the build system: I presume it is the bitbake thing? smile.gif I'd like to repeat what you are doing. I'll set myself up to try this weekend. rolleyes.gif More sleep deprivation! sad.gif

I really need to find time to test these cross-compiler systems out, if I'm going to get into this. I expect that I'm going to have to try and build some of the multimedia stuff myself. Meanie's comment about hardware support in 2.6 kernels seems on target! Meanie's comments usually are. biggrin.gif

It will be interesting to see if an OABI kernel helps with the problems though. smile.gif

So it looks like my guess about OABI kernels coming through before a fully developed armel system was correct. cool.gif

Cheers biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cortez
post Oct 24 2007, 01:56 AM
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 376
Joined: 18-March 04
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 2,380



The Poky build system is OE/bitbake indeed. The Poky README describes how to get started. The complete build system can be checked out by simply running svn co http://svn.o-hand.com/repos/poky/trunk poky

Default setup and building is simple, adjusting the default configuration is somewhat more complicated than I was used to in the pdaXrom-builder.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tux
post Oct 24 2007, 03:39 AM
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 12-August 03
From: Leeds, UK
Member No.: 346



QUOTE(cortez @ Oct 24 2007, 10:56 AM) *
The Poky build system is OE/bitbake indeed. The Poky README describes how to get started. The complete build system can be checked out by simply running svn co http://svn.o-hand.com/repos/poky/trunk poky

Default setup and building is simple, adjusting the default configuration is somewhat more complicated than I was used to in the pdaXrom-builder.

cool.gif Thank you, I'll get on with that now. biggrin.gif

Quote:'adjusting the default configuration is somewhat more complicated than I was used to in the pdaXrom-builder'. Why is this not a surprise to me? rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tux
post Oct 24 2007, 04:23 AM
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 12-August 03
From: Leeds, UK
Member No.: 346



QUOTE(tux @ Oct 24 2007, 12:39 PM) *
QUOTE(cortez @ Oct 24 2007, 10:56 AM) *
The Poky build system is OE/bitbake indeed. The Poky README describes how to get started. The complete build system can be checked out by simply running svn co http://svn.o-hand.com/repos/poky/trunk poky

Default setup and building is simple, adjusting the default configuration is somewhat more complicated than I was used to in the pdaXrom-builder.

cool.gif Thank you, I'll get on with that now. biggrin.gif

Quote:'adjusting the default configuration is somewhat more complicated than I was used to in the pdaXrom-builder'. Why is this not a surprise to me? rolleyes.gif

cool.gif I've set up the poky/bitbake buildsystem. Now for more self-education. While doing this I had a little look around. OpenHand have done a lot of work in this sort of area, e.g. Nokia 770. You can google for them and find lots of interesting stuff. I think this link might be of great interest:Open hand Projects.

There are some highly relevant files to this thread and some useful pointers. biggrin.gif

Lots of things are turning up. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cortez
post Oct 24 2007, 06:46 AM
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 376
Joined: 18-March 04
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 2,380



See attached the 2.6.21 OABI Poky kernel. I'm currently not able to test, so if maybe someone else could test this it would be great.
It's not actually a .tar.gz, so just rename the file to zImage-2.6.21-spitz-20071024075428.bin

Attached File(s)
Attached File  zImage_2.6.21_spitz_20071024075428.bin.tar.gz ( 1.2MB ) Number of downloads: 6
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tux
post Oct 24 2007, 06:56 AM
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 12-August 03
From: Leeds, UK
Member No.: 346



QUOTE(cortez @ Oct 24 2007, 03:46 PM) *
See attached the 2.6.21 OABI Poky kernel. I'm currently not able to test, so if maybe someone else could test this it would be great.
It's not actually a .tar.gz, so just rename the file to zImage-2.6.21-spitz-20071024075428.bin

cool.gif I've downloaded it. I'll need to get the matching modules ( using 2.6.20 at the moment) but then I'll test things out. I'll try and do it by midnight. Got to sort the laundry out!! If only real life didn't get in the way! biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cortez
post Oct 24 2007, 07:03 AM
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 376
Joined: 18-March 04
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 2,380



See attached the matching modules. The forum only allows to upload tar.gz files, so just remove the tar.gz from the filename.

Attached File(s)
Attached File  modules_2.6.21_spitz.tgz.tar.gz ( 2.94MB ) Number of downloads: 8
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th December 2014 - 09:52 PM