On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 22:50, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > > On 21/2/20 11:11 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > On 21/02/2020 12:26, Hesham Almatary wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 11:07, Sebastian Huber > >> <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > >>> Hello Hesham, > >>> > >>> On 20/02/2020 16:40, Hesham Almatary wrote: > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> Are there any progress updates to the Waf build system integration in > >>>> RTEMS? > >>>> > >>>> I have pulled [1] and it seems like it hasn't got many updates since > >>>> December. I wonder what's still remaining/blocking to merge it, or at > >>>> least push it as a development branch (without re-writing history) > >>>> that others, including me, can use it and submit patches against. > >>>> > >>>> [1] git://git.rtems.org/sebh/rtems.git > >>> technically, the new build system is ready for integration into the > >>> master branch. I would need about one day to rebase and test it before > >>> the push. The integration is currently blocked since Chris and Joel had > >>> no time to look at it. > >>> > >> Thanks for your input, Sebastian. Is there a recommended branch I > >> should be based on? I noticed there's "build" and "build-next". > > > > The "build" branch contains the state of the first review. I updated > > "build-next" a couple of times to integrate the changes on the RTEMS master. > > > >> Do you intend to re-write git history in either? > > > > Yes, when I started with the build system work I didn't expect a more than > > two > > months review period. > > I have discussed this merge with Joel. We have decided to release RTEMS 5 > before > we merge a new build system. A release with parallel build systems is > confusing > and distracting. > That makes sense to me. I think we should both try to push for an RTEMS release soon, and make the waf/build branch more stable and/or in the view (e.g., push as an experimental branch) for developer to use until a release comes out. I understand another branch would incur more maintaibility efforts, but it will also help make the the new build system more usable.
> I think we are close to a release if master can stay stable. The milestone > ticket page ... > > https://devel.rtems.org/milestone/5.1 > > ... shows 43 in progress and 2 closed. Help with the tickets will help > progress > things. > > I am working on moving the libbsd release to the 5-freebsd-12 branch and the > side effects that causes. I will need reports of a libbsd release snapshort > running on ... > > beagleboneblack, imx7, xilinx_zynq_zedboard, qoriq_e500 > > I can do this for the beagleboneblack and xilinx_zynq_zedboard. > I recently got libbsd working with RISC-V on QEMU. On my TODO list, I'll create a soft SoC with DTB/FDT and devices for testing on an FPGA board, I will report about that if I got some apps/tests reasonably working. > Finally there is the FDT file managements, I would like a resolution on a > suitable path to get FDT files into a release and at least one BSP to support > this. I have selected the BeagleBone Black because I have one to test on. > I can pitch in with RISC-V (QEMU and/or FPGA SoCs/board). I'd like for FDT management to be as generic as could be across different BSPs/architectures. > Chris On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 22:50, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > > On 21/2/20 11:11 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > On 21/02/2020 12:26, Hesham Almatary wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 11:07, Sebastian Huber > >> <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > >>> Hello Hesham, > >>> > >>> On 20/02/2020 16:40, Hesham Almatary wrote: > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> Are there any progress updates to the Waf build system integration in > >>>> RTEMS? > >>>> > >>>> I have pulled [1] and it seems like it hasn't got many updates since > >>>> December. I wonder what's still remaining/blocking to merge it, or at > >>>> least push it as a development branch (without re-writing history) > >>>> that others, including me, can use it and submit patches against. > >>>> > >>>> [1] git://git.rtems.org/sebh/rtems.git > >>> technically, the new build system is ready for integration into the > >>> master branch. I would need about one day to rebase and test it before > >>> the push. The integration is currently blocked since Chris and Joel had > >>> no time to look at it. > >>> > >> Thanks for your input, Sebastian. Is there a recommended branch I > >> should be based on? I noticed there's "build" and "build-next". > > > > The "build" branch contains the state of the first review. I updated > > "build-next" a couple of times to integrate the changes on the RTEMS master. > > > >> Do you intend to re-write git history in either? > > > > Yes, when I started with the build system work I didn't expect a more than > > two > > months review period. > > I have discussed this merge with Joel. We have decided to release RTEMS 5 > before > we merge a new build system. A release with parallel build systems is > confusing > and distracting. > > I think we are close to a release if master can stay stable. The milestone > ticket page ... > > https://devel.rtems.org/milestone/5.1 > > ... shows 43 in progress and 2 closed. Help with the tickets will help > progress > things. > > I am working on moving the libbsd release to the 5-freebsd-12 branch and the > side effects that causes. I will need reports of a libbsd release snapshort > running on ... > > beagleboneblack, imx7, xilinx_zynq_zedboard, qoriq_e500 > > I can do this for the beagleboneblack and xilinx_zynq_zedboard. > > Finally there is the FDT file managements, I would like a resolution on a > suitable path to get FDT files into a release and at least one BSP to support > this. I have selected the BeagleBone Black because I have one to test on. > > Chris -- Hesham _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
