On 22/7/21 8:55 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 5:49 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org > <mailto:chr...@rtems.org>> wrote: > > On 22/7/21 8:35 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 2:10 PM Sebastian Huber > > <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de > <mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote: > >> > >> On 21/07/2021 21:05, Gedare Bloom wrote: > >>>>> The problem is that one BSP which supports SMP "riscv/griscv" is > identical to > >>>>> the family "riscv/griscv" which contains BSPs which do not support > SMP > >>>>> ("riscv/grv32i" and riscv/grv32im"). > >>>> Hmm, tricky. Can the BSPs that do not support SMP disable SMP in the > BSP > >>>> specific config, ie override/specialise in the BSP? > >>>> > >>> Or, can we avoid having duplication between BSP names and family > names? > >> > >> Yes, good idea. We could use a "family/" prefix for example > >> ("family/<arch>/<bsp-family-name>"). > > Great idea. > > > Ideally we would never have a family and BSP variant have the same name. > > But that rule is violated multiple times now. > > Yeap. > > > I am not sure where your triple is intended to be used but we have used > > the pattern arch/BSP which is really <arch>/<bsp_variant> as the > > full name of BSPs. > > > > If we want to step that further, we could do something similar to the > > GNU target triple where the middle component is a rarely used vendor. > > <arch>/<bsp_family>/<bsp_variant>. > > I think we are to late for this because the spec file format follows what > I did > in the eco-system and I would prefer we maintained a single unified way > of doing > this than changing it. > > > In recent history, there was an issue of BSP variant names needing to > > be unique across all architectures. This may also need to apply to bsp > > family names. > > What about "bsps/<family>". This means you have: > > powerpc/mvme2307 > bsps/motorola_powerpc > > Is the first line is our BSP formal naming pattern and the second is how > families are named, that should be ok.
It is as you state. In a formal sense it is: BSP: <arch>/<bsp> BSP FAMILY: bsps</bsp-family> This format and approach does not break existing eco-system code that is set up to parse a single `/` into two parts, the arch and bsp. A check of the arch component for `bsps` can raise an error, ie unknown arch, or be extended to handle a BSP family. > Rules for uniqueness apply. Yes. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
