On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Sebastian Huber > > <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > >> > >> On 08/12/15 16:03, Joel Sherrill wrote: > >>> > >>> What BSPs/architectures have you tested? > >> > >> > >> I temporarily moved the splinkersets01 test to the samples/ticker and > >> tested that all BSPs build and link this test. > >> > >> I executed the splinkersets01 test on sis, psim and > >> arm_realview_pbx_a9_qemu. > >> > >>> > >>> Is this something that breaks on a per BSP basis? or per architecture > >>> basis? > >>> I am assuming that since it is linker based, each BSP could have broken > >>> linkcmds. > >>> Is that right? > >> > >> > >> It breaks on a per linker command file basis. Since all the maintained > >> BSPs use a linkercmds.base, which shouldn't be a big issue. > >> > > > > That means a LOT of the BSPs are broken. You have defined maintained in > your > > own way. > > There are only a handful of architectures with linkcmds.base in them: > > > > ./or1k/shared/startup/linkcmds.base > > ./arm/shared/startup/linkcmds.base > > ./m68k/shared/startup/linkcmds.base > > ./powerpc/tqm8xx/startup/linkcmds.base > > ./powerpc/gen5200/startup/linkcmds.base > > ./powerpc/shared/startup/linkcmds.base > > ./sparc/shared/startup/linkcmds.base > > > > I am not sure how many BSPs within arm, m68k, or powerpc actually use the > > linkcmds.base. > > > > By my count, 13 of 94 BSP families have linkcmds.base. > > > >> > >> For requirements on the linker command file, see new chapter in user > >> manual. However BSPs should not deal with this in copy and paste linker > >> command files and instead use a linkercmds.base file. > >> > > > > So 85% of the BSP families don't use linkcmds.base and by the above > > statement, > > they must immediately be migrated to linkcmds.base. > > > > Unless you have a plan to address this problem, I am on the side of > > rejecting the > > part of this patch that changes the initialization. And the issue must > be > > addressed > > before this can be merged. > > > How hard to make updating 1 BSP as a GCI task? Sebastian to mentor... ;-) > > Each architecture needs at least one linkcmds.base. I suspect Sebastian has to create that for each architecture since is harder. >From there it should be possible for him to write instructions to convert a single BSP. Doing a single BSP family should make a nice sized GCI task. Worst case, if they all don't get done, we have a check list and instructions to work through after the holidays. Someone (hint Sebastian) must write the GCI instructions and do the base work. Then we need a list of BSP families that need to be converted. After that, Gedare or I should be able to generate the set of tasks to import into the GCI website. I would prefer that Sebastian co-mentor these so he can answer at least the questions on the initial tasks students do. The questions should be repetitive after a bit so improving instructions and other mentors knowing the information should allow others to help. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH > >> > >> Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany > >> Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 > >> Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 > >> E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de > >> PGP : Public key available on request. > >> > >> Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG. > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list > > devel@rtems.org > > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
