Help New Kernel For Pdaxrom

[louigi600]

Ok this is the current state:

InSearchOf hase managed to apply all pdaXrom specific patches to 2.6.21,
Over at OZ they have a recepy for 2.6.21 so probbably they have fixed some of the issues afflicting our experiments,
with a few adjustments I managed to apply OZ patches for 2.6.21 to 2.6.21.5 and some pdaXrom specific patches (kernel builds but I've not tested yet on any device),
I've still not yet managed to get the zaurushw and nanlogical specific patches applied to 2.6.21.5.

It would be intresting to merge our efforts ;-)

[XorA]

Over at OZ they have a recepy for 2.6.21 so probbably they have fixed some of the issues afflicting our experiments,

I doubt this is true, we closed OZ project months ago. I think you mean to advertise Angstrom for us :-)

[louigi600]

I doubt this is true, we closed OZ project months ago. I think you mean to advertise Angstrom for us :-)
[div align=\"right\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

Yea ... I probabbly meant OE ... anyway the recepy is
[a href=\"http://www.openembedded.org/filebrowser/org.openembedded.dev/packages/linux/linux-rp-2.6.21]http://www.openembedded.org/filebrowser/or...linux-rp-2.6.21[/url]
and the archive where I got the patches is
http://www.rpsys.net/openzaurus/patches/archive/

[Hrw]

It would be intresting to merge our efforts ;-)[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164268\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

Our kernel team is open for properly made patches. Keep in mind that any Zaurus support patches which goes to mainline goes through our kernel guys.

[louigi600]

Our kernel team is open for properly made patches. Keep in mind that any Zaurus support patches which goes to mainline goes through our kernel guys.
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164287\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

Although that's not what I meant right now (I was talking about merging InSearcOf's work with mine), the idea is good but tending a little off topic.

I mean I do not want to start another holy war about pdaXrom's and OE's way of life.

Right now pdaxrom's current kernel is desparately old and has some severe consequences so the very first thing would be to get it alligned with what's avalible now (in terms of what's gotten fixed for Z). Once we reach this situation we can talk about this again.

[Hrw]

louigi600: does it really have to look like "we, pdaX team, will get recent work done by OE Zaurus kernel hackers, add own hacks/patches and ignore the fact that we can cooperate" again?

Think about cooperation from beginning - otherwise you will get back one day just to see that we already done some of your fixes and that your new code need to be cleaned up, split into separate patches and updated to our code.

[T3_slider]

Think about cooperation from beginning - otherwise you will get back one day just to see that we already done some of your fixes and that your new code need to be cleaned up, split into separate patches and updated to our code.

Oh yeah, I forgot you guys were gods and did everything right.

Everyone should just RELAX -- if the pdaXrom devs want to do their own thing, let them -- it is after all their distribution to develop. Although merging pdaXrom and Angstrom would help in some respects, it would also prevent innovation from competing teams -- which is a good thing in my opinion. Also, the two distributions are completely different -- if they merge both sides (or at least one side, and I can tell who that would be) would lose out on some existing functionality (like being able to use a real web browser...but I won't go there).

Why is it that Angstrom/OZ people ALWAYS seem to want to conquer the Z market? The way I see it, the more options the better. It would be nice to allow sharing of code liberally throughout in both directions to avoid reinventing the wheel, but past that, it's not worth discussing unless both sides are clearly interested.

I'm really not trying to bait -- I just think those with sticks up their arses need to lighten up.

[InSearchOf]

Think about cooperation from beginning - otherwise you will get back one day just to see that we already done some of your fixes and that your new code need to be cleaned up, split into separate patches and updated to our code.

Oh yeah, I forgot you guys were gods and did everything right.

Everyone should just RELAX -- if the pdaXrom devs want to do their own thing, let them -- it is after all their distribution to develop. Although merging pdaXrom and Angstrom would help in some respects, it would also prevent innovation from competing teams -- which is a good thing in my opinion. Also, the two distributions are completely different -- if they merge both sides (or at least one side, and I can tell who that would be) would lose out on some existing functionality (like being able to use a real web browser...but I won't go there).

Why is it that Angstrom/OZ people ALWAYS seem to want to conquer the Z market? The way I see it, the more options the better. It would be nice to allow sharing of code liberally throughout in both directions to avoid reinventing the wheel, but past that, it's not worth discussing unless both sides are clearly interested.

I'm really not trying to bait -- I just think those with sticks up their arses need to lighten up.
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164327\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

I agree

Late

[Hrw]

Oh yeah, I forgot you guys were gods and did everything right.

Atleast we got 2.6 kernel working on all Zaurus models

Everyone should just RELAX -- if the pdaXrom devs want to do their own thing, let them -- it is after all their distribution to develop. Although merging pdaXrom and Angstrom would help in some respects, it would also prevent innovation from competing teams -- which is a good thing in my opinion. Also, the two distributions are completely different -- if they merge both sides (or at least one side, and I can tell who that would be) would lose out on some existing functionality (like being able to use a real web browser...but I won't go there).[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164327\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

I am not talking about distributions merge but kernel work merge. For me pdaX distribution can live like it is now and I think that it will evolve and works. Do some stuff from it go to OE based distros (and vice versa) does not matter too much for me. But I do prefer to have more cooperation work when it comes to kernel stuff. For example during 2.6.22 development PXA suspend/resume got broken - finding why took many hours but finally Richard came with fix. I would like to avoid situations when pdaX kernel team will invent same stuff as OE Zaurus kernel team (and vice versa) in same time.

Why is it that Angstrom/OZ people ALWAYS seem to want to conquer the Z market? The way I see it, the more options the better. It would be nice to allow sharing of code liberally throughout in both directions to avoid reinventing the wheel, but past that, it's not worth discussing unless both sides are clearly interested.[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164327\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

For apps/distro work I do not need pdaX/Angstrom/OZ/etc merging. But for kernel I want to have cooperation as we spent too much time to get it working.

[zodttd]

Well Hrw, does your SDL support a framebuffer console mode (fbcon) that rotates the screen from the native portrait mode back to landscape? I noticed that 2.6 kernels don't seem to support SDL as well as the previous 2.4 kernels. pdaXrom's R198 SDL is very slow in X11 mode, but FBCON is very fast, although still suffers from the rotation issues as it's drawing straight to the portait oriented framebuffer. I'm moving back to the 2.4 kernels due to this.

[Meanie]

I agree with HRW. Ideally, make uboot an optional component, ie default kernel without uboot requirement/compatible with other distros, and then have special edition for advanced users with uboot support.
makes flashing and reflashing easier as well...

[louigi600]

Hrw and T3_slider .... you're directing these sort of comment to the wrong person.

Personally I'm no experienced progremmer and I find the friction between the different Z distros really stupid.

I obviously did not explain myself right:
I love the idea but I'm only a tester in the team so I cannot decide wether the whole team wants to collaborate (but I see som positive feedback from some other team members).
I just wantetd to avoid talking about other stuff here ... this thread is a help request not a debate on if and how pdaXrom and OE should collaborate.

I must also say, and explain why, I strogly dissagre with a rather diffused opinion that says "there should be only one really good distro for Z".
For me that is very very wrong. The thins we need mosts are:
much much better collaboration,
much better flexibility * and
spend a little more time helping those who wish to become more experienced.

*: there is a big problem behind this. I frequently wish to customize my Z but nearly equally frequently it's not possible because of a non open source dependeny. If it's not because it's not open then it's not been developed enough to make it flexible and if it's not being developed enough then there is not  enough documentation on it.

Meanie ... getting rid of sharp loader is a good example. I dissagree with you as it's probabbly one of the biggest obstacles in flexibility because it has many other dependencies in the partition where it lies.

People are looking for multi boot because they cannot customize any distro to do all they want to do. If the dostros were made more flexible people would stop looking for multi boot and choose whicever distro they like best and customize it to their needs ... and they will be very happy users.

OK ... once this is said ... I'm willing to collaborate with anyone ... whether it be from OE or even from another planet. Contact me via PM and we can arange for more efficient ways of comunicating and exchanging knowlege/work.

Back to work .... I want to get 2.6.21.5 working on pdaXrom without braking anything while keeping all tthat has been fixed since 2.6.16 ;-)

[XorA]

Well Hrw, does your SDL support a framebuffer console mode (fbcon) that rotates the screen from the native portrait mode back to landscape? I noticed that 2.6 kernels don't seem to support SDL as well as the previous 2.4 kernels. pdaXrom's R198 SDL is very slow in X11 mode, but FBCON is very fast, although still suffers from the rotation issues as it's drawing straight to the portait oriented framebuffer. I'm moving back to the 2.4 kernels due to this.
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

On C7x0 C860 zaurus the framebuffer is rotated in hardware by fbcon, making it as fast in portrait as in landscape. We also have a supreme gfx hacker has worked out 90% of accelleration of the w100 chip so this machine really shift gfx very fast (even Xv video works in X).

On C1000/3x00 machine its plain pxafb, and I was under the impression that is always in portrait and the console just renders the text with a 90 degrees rotation in landscape mode. If this is wrong and pxafb can be rotated properly then feel free to dig up the code. It would make X go a whole lot faster as well as fb based stuff.

[louigi600]

This thread is not about debating what's better or not.

Please please stop it.

Let's keep the atmosphere in a woking collaboration ... not a debate.

[XorA]

Let's keep the atmosphere in a woking collaboration ... not a debate.
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

I think we are :-D zottd asked specific questions about fbcon which I answered.