[uClinux-dev] XIP broken in 2.4.31-uc0 ? (fwd)

David McCullough davidm at snapgear.com
Mon Oct 10 01:06:02 EDT 2005


Jivin Erwin Authried lays it down ...
> Am Sam, den 08.10.2005 schrieb David McCullough um 7:28:
> > Jivin David Howells lays it down ...
> > > David McCullough <davidm at snapgear.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Not currently,  this is still working with the old romptr code in
> > > > conjunction with the new mmap stuff.
> > > 
> > > It should be possible to dispense with the romptr op, at least in the 2.6
> > > kernel.
> > 
> > I fully intend to get rid of it in 2.4 as well,  but we are in the last
> > stages of a release and a lot of people rely on XIP working,  so a
> > complete re-implementation at this stage didn't seem the ideal time :-)
>
> I'm wondering if it's really worth to do that in 2.4. There are strong
> reasons to move to 2.6 if you use XIP, because MTD supports execution of
> XIP apps as well as the kernel from flash, with the ability to
> program/erase at the same time. If we are there, that's something that
> *really* deserves to be called XIP. You know that MTD has dropped 2.4
> support (I hate this policy, but what shell we do?), but backporting the
> new MTD stuff into 2.4 seems like a waste of time.

I can't remember the last time I actually needed an MTD provided update to
fix a problem on an embedded target,  so dropping the 2.4 support isn't really
a big one for me,  what is there will continue to do what is needed.

As for the 2.6 stuff,  you are right,  but I think keeping 2.4 and 2.6
similar is still useful,  and this code should move fairly easily from
one to the other,

Cheers,
Davidm

-- 
David McCullough, davidm at cyberguard.com.au, Custom Embedded Solutions + Security
Ph:+61 734352815 Fx:+61 738913630 http://www.uCdot.org http://www.cyberguard.com



More information about the uClinux-dev mailing list