On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:26 PM Christian Mauderer <o...@c-mauderer.de> wrote:
> Hello Niteesh, > > On 25/05/2020 11:20, Niteesh G. S. wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I have completed the porting of the OFW code from FreeBSD to RTEMS. > > I do acknowledge the fact that we haven't decided on the directory for > files > > to be placed in. The previous conversation had stopped quite a while ago. > > Christian suggested I work on the patch since that would also start the > > conversation again and also refactoring the patch to the correct > directory > > will not be much of work. > > > > cpukit/libfreebsd was suggested as one of the directories to place the > > ported > > FreeBSD files. It is suggested to place all the source files under this > > directory. > > Since this will make the sync part easier. But this causes issues when > > porting > > BSP dependent files. Since RTEMS currently doesn't allow files in cpukit > to > > reference bsp headers. I faced a similar issue during my porting process > > also. > > The OFW init function require bsp_fdt_get function to get a reference to > > the fdt > > blob. But I can't include the bsp/fdt.h header file from a source file > > under cpukit. > > We must decide the directory quickly because my project will import other > > FreeBSD sources like the pinmux driver for beaglebone into RTEMS. > > Do you have a suggestion for another directory? > > If cpukit makes problems (which it clearly does due to the BSP > dependencies) maybe something in bsps/shared? > The more organized way, in my opinion, will be to have the source files in their respective directories. This is would make more sense than having all source files under a single directory. But as discussed in the previous mailing list using this approach will make it harder for the person writing the sync script. I also have no idea of what complexity goes behind such a script. So points from the person who's most probably going to write the script will be really important. > > > > https://github.com/gs-niteesh/rtems/commits/ofw_branch > > For small patches it would be better to send them to the list using "git > send-email". That allows to comment directly on the patches. But in this > case using a repo is OK because especially the import is quite big. > Once we have a decent enough patch I'll send it to the mailing list. > I'll add comments for small stuff directly on github. I hope that works ;-) > > Best regards > > Christian > > > Please have a look at the last 6 patches for the ported work. > > Below is a short summary of the patch. > > * The openfirm.h is the OF interface that will provided to the user. > > * The openfirm.c contains the function definition for openfirm.h. The > > functions > > call the respective OFW_* functions which are responsible for choosing > > the correct implementation for OF interface. > > * ofw_if.h is the replacement for ofw_if.h in FreeBSD. This is an auto > > generated > > header in FreeBSD which choose the correct OF implementation(ofw_fdt, > > ofw_std, > > ofw_32bit, ofw_real). In RTEMS we directly map to the FDT implementation > as > > suggested by Sebastian. > > * ofw_fdt.c contains the fdt implementation of OF interface. > > > > Thanks, > > Niteesh. > > >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
