Can you point me at Sebastian’s driver? I haven’t been able to find it in the repo.
A > On 2021-February-01, at 16:05, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 4:54 PM Mr. Andrei Chichak <gro...@chichak.ca > <mailto:gro...@chichak.ca>> wrote: > Oh, crap, I’m off by 3 orders of magnitude, I’ve got 512KB. > > That's an LWIP candidate. :) > > But Sebastian did a driver for libbsd for the H7 series. If you have more > memory > or can attach external RAM, that's an option. > > > Bother, I need a nap already. > > A > >> On 2021-February-01, at 15:35, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org >> <mailto:j...@rtems.org>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 4:25 PM Andrei Chichak <and...@chichak.ca >> <mailto:and...@chichak.ca>> wrote: >> any guidance choosing between “Legacy Stack” and libbsd? >> >> This one is easy. Please please please please do NOT choose the legacy >> stack. :) >> >> The legacy stack should only be used on projects that are using it and those >> are encouraged to move along to libbsd or lwip or new hardware. We have no >> plans to eliminate the legacy stack from the world. But as Gedare said, we >> want >> to move it to a separate repository. If someone cares, then it gets a build >> system >> and can be used with a strong discouragement. >> >> It is 20+ years old now and IPV4 only. Do the math. :) >> >> >> I’ve got a 512MB of RAM processor, so I expect that I’ll have lots left >> over. But that is TBD. >> >> 512MB is still huge in RTEMS terms. That won't be a problem for libbsd at >> all. It is when you >> start considering targets with < 16MB that we have concerns. I suspect that >> number is <4MB >> but the original BSP for the legacy stack only had 1MB for code and data >> space. It is clear >> some boards that could run the legacy stack will not be capable of running >> libbsd but we >> don't have a hard cutoff yet. >> >> --joel >> >> A >> >>> On 2021-February-01, at 15:21, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org >>> <mailto:j...@rtems.org>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 4:03 PM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org >>> <mailto:ged...@rtems.org>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 2:42 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org >>> <mailto:chr...@rtems.org>> wrote: >>> On 2/2/21 8:32 am, Mr. Andrei Chichak wrote: >>> > Is there any advantage to using bsd networking over LWiP, or vice versa? >>> >>> They are different stacks with different feature sets and different hardware >>> resource demands. I am not familiar with the features of LwIP so I am not >>> the >>> best person to compare them. >>> >>> The BSD stack has most of the features you get with FreeBSD. It has IPv4, >>> IPv6, >>> IPsec, VLAN, bridging, dhcp, openssl, lots of routing alternatives, packet >>> filtering and more. It has a range of useful commands including tcpdump. >>> >>> The BSD based system provides a solid base to solve a range of networking >>> issues >>> your RTEMS device may encounter at the system level and not at the low level >>> programming level. >>> >>> The BSD stack uses a lot more resources to do all this and LwIP may be a >>> prefect >>> fit. I welcome RTEMS being able to support a range of networking solutions. >>> >>> >>> I have a student (Vijay) working on refactoring libnetworking out of RTEMS, >>> and will be testing ability to compile legacy vs libbsd. If the lwip build >>> is demonstrated and clear, I can have him also look at bringing that into >>> the fold. This is in line with https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3850 >>> <https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3850> >>> >>> One thing to be aware of is that all the POSIX networking header files for >>> RTEMS are in newlib and always present. I had to address this and lwip when >>> we did Deos+RTEMS. Deos uses lwip as their native stack running in a >>> partition and other partitions use a client to get to it. The lwip >>> constants had values that were not the same as the RTEMS BSD headers for >>> POSIX defines. There were also some places where the structure definitions >>> did not align. I had to write a bit of mapping in the client. When lwip >>> works at all, it would be awesome to have a way for it to ignore their own >>> minimal POSIX API files and build against ours. >>> >>> This would be similar to how the newlib headers define a very complete >>> POSIX API set but each target OS may only support a subset of it. >>> >>> As it is, I wonder if there is a conflict between the RTEMS newlib network >>> .h files and those provided by lwip which could cause issues. >>> >>> >>> We have no certain timeline yet, but it is now work-in-progress. We will >>> bring to devel when progress is made. If we do lwIP too, we will aim to do >>> a performance analysis with real hardware, so that we can hopefully provide >>> evidence to help these kind of questions. >>> >>> -Gedare >>> >>> Chris >>> _______________________________________________ >>> users mailing list >>> users@rtems.org <mailto:users@rtems.org> >>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>> <http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users>_______________________________________________ >>> users mailing list >>> users@rtems.org <mailto:users@rtems.org> >>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>> <http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users> >> --------------------- >> Andrei Chichak >> 4024-120 STREET >> EDMONTON, ALBERTA >> T6J 1X8 >> CANADA >> >> >> Phone: 780-434-6266 >> Skype: andrei.chichak >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> users mailing list >> users@rtems.org <mailto:users@rtems.org> >> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> <http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users> > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@rtems.org <mailto:users@rtems.org> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users > <http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
