On 12/8/19 9:22 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 5:47 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org > <mailto:chr...@rtems.org>> wrote: > > On 12/8/19 3:28 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 10:59 AM Christian Mauderer <l...@c-mauderer.de > <mailto:l...@c-mauderer.de> > > <mailto:l...@c-mauderer.de <mailto:l...@c-mauderer.de>>> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > while mentoring Vijays GSoC project this year I noted that some > drivers > > in the Beagle BSPs have quite horrible hard coded values for things > like > > pinmux initialization. Maybe it would be a nice GSoC project for > next > > year to replace this stuff with a fdt based initialization. I would > like > > to ask for feedback before creating a ticket for it because it would > > mean a quite big change for the BSP (maybe even the name - see > below). > > > > Basically such a project would include the following parts: > > > > - Parse the pinmux settings from FDT and create a two part driver > for a > > 'pinctrl-single' compatible FDT entry. One part generic, one device > > specific (similar to FreeBSD or Linux). > > > > - Remove pinmux initialization from all drivers. > > > > - Initialize drivers based on the FDT (instead of functions like > > bbb_register_i2c_1(...)) > > > > - Taking a more detailed look at the FDT what else could be > initialized > > from it (maybe clocks?) > > > > It could be a quite nice project for a RTEMS beginner. Due to the > > distributed initialization a lot of drivers have to be touched (at > least > > i2c, spi and pwm). So a potential student would get a nice overview > over > > the parts. > > > > Note that this would be a big change for the BSP. Currently the BSP > can > > be used without an FDT (as far as I know). Only libbsd needs one. > After > > that a FDT would be mandatory. Despite that, I think that it would > be an > > improvement. > > > > Maybe it would be possible to merge the four beagle* BSPs that we > have > > into only one "beagle" or "am33xx" BSP with that change. That would > > allow to support new Beagle variants like the Pocket Beagle without > much > > effort (most likely only a change in the FDT). > > > > What do you think? Should I create a ticket for it? > > > > I love it. Yes please create a ticket. > > > I think this is a good idea if we can still avoid bloating apps with all > > drivers. Make sure it has the right tags and shows up on the project > page. > > The beagle has a lot of RAM. Is this as important for this BSP? > > Not really but we don't want bad patterns starting. >
How does a user then configure a build to get the minimal set for them? Without dynamically loading does mean we need a bunch of build options? Is building for dynamic loading something we should consider? Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
