[linux-sh:03243] Re: The current kernel for a Jornada 680 SH3

On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 11:34:09AM +0100, Chris wrote:
> I am interested in a bit of reviving/updating the WinCE builds, and found 
> myself running in circles for a number of reasons: a) this list has not 
> been archived for 2004 and the lists on sourceforge seem to contain little 
> of any use b) I couldn't check out anything with bitkeeper, despite some 
> activity at bkbits c) generally, most projects have been abandoned at 
> arbitrary stages of their development. I promise to write up my adventures 
> with the current software, I'd like however to have a couple of questions 
> answered:
> 
The BK stuff was abandoned, and was only ever useful for sh64. SuperH still has
an interest in keeping this up to date, but it's not the way to go (the
documentation still needs some updating).

> a) Are the linuxsh patches against 2.6.6 the way to go, with the toolchain 
> built with the latest sources of everything?

Most people seem to still be using gcc 3.2.x toolchains with Kojima-san's
patches. If you want a prebuilt version, Sugioka-san has these at
http://www.sh-linux.org.

The kernel stuff is all in CVS, or alternately, also available with GNU arch.
I would personally like to move away from CVS entirely and just stick with
arch, but that's another matter. CVS HEAD (linux module) will always give you
the latest against whater the AGAINST-2.6.x file is.

> b) I assume at least a couple of people have active toolchains, but why 
> haven't they continued the automated test builds and the updating of the 
> toolchain? It's less than a year since the latest rpm's were published, but 
> I can't imagine they can manage the 2.6.6 kernel

I've built 2.6 from gcc 3.0.x up to gcc 3.4 from CVS. There really aren't too
many surprised remaining at this point, so any reasonably recent toolchain
should work for the kernel just fine.

> c) I expect to get stuck very quickly, what is the right forum to ask for 
> help, and is it likely to get any?
> 
The mailing lists are the best route to go. I don't have any control over this
list, but the linuxsh-dev list is really the best place to raise these sort of
issues.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAtfRh1K+teJFxZ9wRAjzbAJ9uvPaRtMptexs7ikae3YC3HpUCOQCff8+9
1Se7s2hZCzfnQ8f1auOpsnM=
=JybL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----