On Monday 20 July 2015 22:46:47 Michael Welling wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 09:14:12AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Monday 13 July 2015 17:36:07 Michael Welling wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:02:44AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > I think nothing special. I just call: > > > > > > > > export ARCH=arm > > > > export CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux-gnueabi- > > > > make rx51_defconfig > > > > rm -f arch/arm/boot/zImage > > > > make -j12 zImage modules omap3-n900.dtb > > > > CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=y cat arch/arm/boot/zImage > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-n900.dtb > arch/arm/boot/zImage.new mv > > > > arch/arm/boot/zImage.new arch/arm/boot/zImage > > > > > > Where are you getting rx51_defconfig from? > > > > > > This does not appear to be in the kernel source any longer. > > > > > > Can you try the above with omap2plus_defconfig? > > > > It is in my linux-n900 repository: > > https://github.com/pali/linux-n900 Repository contains more n900 > > specific patches but SPI code is unpatched > > > > https://github.com/pali/linux-n900/blob/HEAD/arch/arm/configs/rx51_ > > defconfig > > > > Later in week I can try to compile also with omap2plus_defconfig... > > But in my opinion kernel should not crash with different > > configuration. > > Has any progress been made on this? > Hi, sorry but I did not have time last weekend for testing... > Seeing as I was dropped into the middle of this thread, > I took a look at the discussion previous. > > It appears that you are building the drivers as modules. > Perhaps I can again attempt to duplicate the issue using modules. > Though this should not make a difference. Yes, you can try to build drivers as modules. Also you can try to use my rx51_defconfig. Maybe you find something more... -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
