This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
RE: New ARM core port
- From: "Patrick Doyle" <wpd at delcomsys dot com>
- To: "Gary Thomas" <gary at mlbassoc dot com>
- Cc: "eCos Discussion" <ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:50:18 -0500
- Subject: RE: [ECOS] New ARM core port
> On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 13:30, Patrick Doyle wrote:
> > > I don't see any good reason to break how the ARM platforms are
> > > already being handled (yes, I know they don't match how PowerPC
> > > and MIPS are done), so I think just putting it under hal/arm/arm9
> > > would be best.
> > >
> > Actually, I was planning on creating hal/arm/omap, hal/arm/omap/var, and
> > hal/arm/omap/platform1, hal/arm/omap/platform2, etc...
> >
> > Would you prefer that I put the new platform(s) under hal/arm/arm9?
>
> I would think so - aren't they ARM9 variants? Whatever that is
> special about being "omap" could be separated out if there is
> much to it (as opposed to what is special about being "arm9")
>
> You might end up with something like this:
> hal/
> arm/
> arch
> arm9/
> var
> omap_platform1
> omap_platform2
> ...
>
> If there is sufficient overlap, then you might add
> omap
> to handle the common parts.
OK, that works for me. I misunderstood the differences between the arm9,
sa11x0, etc... directories.
BTW, you were right. (Gee, don't you just _LOVE_ hearing that?) The MMU
stuff went in very easily. The hardest part was getting over my personal
bias against having a bootloader or a deeply embedded application require
the use of the MMU to operate properly. Once I decided that it wasn't much
different than the chip select state machines on the powerpc, I was able to
(mostly) overcome that bias.
Thanks again for the hard work.
--wpd
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss