PHC packaging

Discuss about PHC here. For problems please use the PHC Help forum
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri 18. Jul 2008, 11:25
Contact:

PHC packaging

Post by DavidG » Sun 5. Oct 2008, 21:29

I could not come up with a better topic title, but at the moment, AFAIK the PHC driver package is distributed as a patch against the kernel tree.

Realistically, the PHC patches are never going to be accepted to mainstream. Therefore, there are IMHO some things to decide:
  • Are we continuing to distribute PHC patches against mainstream or are we going to use an out-of-tree build via a custom Makefile, similar to other projects, such as ALSA and Linux-wireless.
  • Do we keep using the current names of the unmodified vanilla-kernel modules or not? E.g.: powernow-k8 or phc-k8, acpi-cpufreq or phc-cpufreq? It would be easier for Linux distributions to incorporate the PHC modules if the names are different...
(I am not allowed to upload my example "Makefile" because the "extension" is not allowed :? )
A bank is a place where they lend you an umbrella in fair weather and ask for it back when it begins to rain -- R. Frost

the-fallen
Administrator
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed 9. Jul 2008, 19:57

Re: PHC packaging

Post by the-fallen » Tue 14. Oct 2008, 09:25

Just compress the file (tar.gz for example).

Your idea isn't bad.
We just need to make it easy for users.

I do prefer an own module for the future.
Something like "phc-amd" and "phc-intel" and those modules can depend on powernow-k8 or acpi-cpufreq. Doing it this way we do not need to adapt the patches each time some lines are rearranged or changed in the original source code and users easiliy can load/unload the module if they just want to test it.

User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri 18. Jul 2008, 11:25
Contact:

Re: PHC packaging

Post by DavidG » Tue 14. Oct 2008, 09:41

Here's the Makefile I use ATM
Attachments
phc-Makefile.tar.gz
(913 Bytes) Downloaded 391 times
A bank is a place where they lend you an umbrella in fair weather and ask for it back when it begins to rain -- R. Frost

tntprog
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed 7. Jan 2009, 02:23

Re: PHC packaging

Post by tntprog » Fri 9. Jan 2009, 23:54

I do prefer an own module for the future.
Something like "phc-amd" and "phc-intel" and those modules can depend on powernow-k8 or acpi-cpufreq. Doing it this way we do not need to adapt the patches each time some lines are rearranged or changed in the original source code and users easiliy can load/unload the module if they just want to test it.
+1!

I saw the AMD k8 PHC driver doesn't require to patch the kernel tree, contrary to the Intel patch. When do you think you could release the same driver for Intel processors?? It would be great!

Note: it's time to update this post: http://phc.athousandnights.de/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2
;)

User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri 18. Jul 2008, 11:25
Contact:

Re: PHC packaging

Post by DavidG » Sat 10. Jan 2009, 00:22

tntprog wrote:+1!

I saw the AMD k8 PHC driver doesn't require to patch the kernel tree, contrary to the Intel patch. When do you think you could release the same driver for Intel processors?? It would be great!

Note: it's time to update this post: http://phc.athousandnights.de/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2
;)
Good catch! But I'll leave it up to Colin "the-fallen" to update his post though.

We've been discussing switching the Intel driver(s) to this and AFAIK he would like to do that in the future. It would also allow an easier integration into DKMS, which is wat I'll be focusing on next, initially just for the AMD driver. The ultimate goal I think should be somethink like a "phc-k8" and "phc-intel" package based on DKMS that you can just install for your Linux distribution without any manual hassle after kernel version changes.

(For those not familiar with DKMS, it is the Dynamic Kernel Module Support which "is designed to create a framework where kernel dependent module source can reside so that it is very easy to rebuild modules as you upgrade kernels", see ttp://linux.dell.com/projects.shtml#dkms . It is what ATI use for their graphics driver.)
A bank is a place where they lend you an umbrella in fair weather and ask for it back when it begins to rain -- R. Frost

the-fallen
Administrator
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed 9. Jul 2008, 19:57

Re: PHC packaging

Post by the-fallen » Sat 10. Jan 2009, 09:01

Hey :)

Yeah somehow I do like this Idea, too.
I will try to do that as soon as I have spare time. If someone else want to help or do that for us, be welcome.

+1 ;)

tntprog
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed 7. Jan 2009, 02:23

Re: PHC packaging

Post by tntprog » Sat 10. Jan 2009, 15:43

the-fallen wrote:Hey :)

Yeah somehow I do like this Idea, too.
I will try to do that as soon as I have spare time. If someone else want to help or do that for us, be welcome.

+1 ;)
I really would like but I think I don't have enough skills to help :|
What do you need to help?

User avatar
aar3Angahqueiquibohc
Administrator
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed 9. Jul 2008, 20:38

Re: PHC packaging

Post by aar3Angahqueiquibohc » Sun 11. Jan 2009, 14:48

i like that idea too ... a kernel independend module would be great for the speedstep-centrino defective dsdt problem too ... than we can support them (me) too :-)

if my skills in C coding are grown up (at least in 1 1/2 years) i would help to code those things ...

regards Gnom
Life is sometimes just like a bad computer game, bad story but very nice graphics.

if you have questions meet me (DonGnom) (almost daily) in #linux-phc on irc.freenode.net.

User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri 18. Jul 2008, 11:25
Contact:

Re: PHC packaging

Post by DavidG » Tue 13. Jan 2009, 10:33

I looked at DKMS this weekend, and I already got it working for the AMD k8 driver!
First I just need to tweak it a bit, but soon I could be able to "repackage" the Intel driver too... Basically, I will need the latest C and header files for the driver, rename it, modify the module name accordingly, add a Makefile (or an dkms.conf for DKMS) and that should pretty much do the trick...
A bank is a place where they lend you an umbrella in fair weather and ask for it back when it begins to rain -- R. Frost

tntprog
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed 7. Jan 2009, 02:23

Re: PHC packaging

Post by tntprog » Tue 13. Jan 2009, 14:36

DavidG wrote:I looked at DKMS this weekend, and I already got it working for the AMD k8 driver!
First I just need to tweak it a bit, but soon I could be able to "repackage" the Intel driver too... Basically, I will need the latest C and header files for the driver, rename it, modify the module name accordingly, add a Makefile (or an dkms.conf for DKMS) and that should pretty much do the trick...
Oooh that would be great!! :D
That would be an easiest way to undervolt CPUs, but less funny... I learned to compile kernels to have Linux PHC running ;)

Post Reply