>
> *Studio for many years. If for nothing else, "function explorer". Which
> works fine with any source even if that source can not be compiled with VS
> ;)*
>
By the way, sublime text 3 has this built in now too.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:31 AM, William Hermans <yyrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *This help me browse to any Linux Kernel function with a ctrl click.*
>>
>
> This is something Visual Studio has had / done for years, as in since . .
> . well as long as I can remember. According to wikipedia, Visual Studio 6
> was released in 1998, and I know it was a feature in VS6 . . . at any rate
> it is why I've used Visual Studio for many years. If for nothing else,
> "function explorer". Which works fine with any source even if that source
> can not be compiled with VS ;)
>
> Now days. *find*, and *grep* take the place of many tools. As well as
> many other command line utilities . . .
>
> The only "compiler" that I'll put up with and is not gcc. Is actually not
> a compiler but is TI's PRU Assembler. I'd also might tolerate clpru in the
> future if I ever get around to reading the manual for it. BUt the PRU is a
> special case, where I feel that community based open source tools are not
> good enough, and probably never will be.
>
> So, when you use a tool chain based on gcc. As well as all the wonderful
> Linux command line utilities. IDE "tools" are no longer necessary, and are
> in fact less efficient. GUI's tend to get in the way, in this context.
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:11 AM, John Syne <john3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yep, I like Sublime Text as well. It is clearly my favorite editor, but
>> for indexing the Linux Kernel, to include only code for the platform I’m
>> using, I use Eclipse. This help me browse to any Linux Kernel function with
>> a ctrl click. For Javascript, I use Webstorm and for embedded I use
>> CCSV6.1. I use whatever tools get the job done.
>>
>> Regards,
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 11:04 PM, William Hermans <yyrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> *That isn’t to say there are no bugs, but they do fix them pretty
>>> quickly. I have a pretty fast desktop with lots of memory so Eclipse
>>> performs quite well for me. *
>>>
>>
>> i7 4710HQ with 16GB RAM, with 2GB dedicated 860M. So it's a laptop, and
>> the only reason why I mention dedicated graphics. It is very, very fast.
>>
>> But again, that's not the point. heh. The point is, even something that
>> is Visual Studio Code ( not the IDE but editor ) that is IDE like, can
>> perform very much faster than any IDE. I've also stopped using VS( the IDE
>> ) because it is also sluggish any more. and it's native code.
>>
>> As it is, I actually prefer writing much of my code in sublime text. As I
>> like many of the features is has, including dark themes I can live with . .
>> . VIM classic mode, snippets, customizable code complete, etc.
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:54 PM, John Syne <john3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On the contrary, I have personal connections with the CCSV6 developers
>>> for many years. I have helped them fix several bugs, especially related to
>>> debugging Linux kernel code back in CCSV4. After CCSV5, TI went a different
>>> directions and I could no longer use CCS for kernel debugging and went the
>>> Lauterbach route. However, for DSP development, there is nothing better
>>> period. For all the other embedded processors, TI do a pretty decent job
>>> with CCSV6. That isn’t to say there are no bugs, but they do fix them
>>> pretty quickly. I have a pretty fast desktop with lots of memory so Eclipse
>>> performs quite well for me.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 10:47 PM, William Hermans <yyrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> *BTW, I believe CCSV6 doesn’t need a license for code that is less than
>>>> 16K. *
>>>>
>>>
>>> I believe that any TI dev board is supported in CCSv6 for free so long
>>> as the code is not used for commercial purposes. This also includes various
>>> other dev boards, which I believe includes the beaglebone boards.
>>>
>>> However, that is not the point. I have a considerable amount of time
>>> invested into using gcc based tool chains and prefer to stick with gcc.
>>> period. I do not need all that instrumentation fluff to write code, and in
>>> fact do not require, or even want an IDE of any sort most of the time. Let
>>> alone a buggy, poor performing IDE written in java . . .
>>>
>>> Also do us both a favor. Don't try and tell me that CCS isn't buggy, and
>>> isn't poor performing, You're not the only one whose been exposed to CCS
>>> for years . . .
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:40 PM, John Syne <john3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ah, so I just use CCSV6 which has all the scripts that take the
>>>> CortexM4s out of reset and configures their memory map so that I can write
>>>> code and debug pretty quickly. Now if you don’t use CCSV6, you have to do
>>>> all that via the CortexA15s and that is going to be very difficult for
>>>> development. I’ve been doing this on the OMAP5 for several years, which has
>>>> many of the same features as AM5728. I also use CCSV6 for the DSPs, which
>>>> have the same issues. The TI DSP C compiler is highly optimized for the C66
>>>> DSP which has many cores that operate in parallel. Also, the
>>>> instrumentation provided by CCSV6 makes it possible to do very accurate
>>>> measurements while running live code. This is especially important for
>>>> multithreaded applications. BTW, I believe CCSV6 doesn’t need a license for
>>>> code that is less than 16K.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 10:30 PM, William Hermans <yyrk...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think more correctly said. They're similar to a Cortex M4 that sits
>>>> on an Lx host processor interconnect. So you can not just use the eabi-none
>>>> gcc port to make them work . . .
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:22 PM, William Hermans <yyrk...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> *The IPU’s are CortexM4 processors. *
>>>>>> *Regards,*
>>>>>>
>>>>> *John*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're just now figuring that out ?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:20 PM, John Syne <john3...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The IPU’s are CortexM4 processors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 9:53 PM, William Hermans <yyrk...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do expect that TI will improve the documentation on their
>>>>>> implementation of remoteproc / rpmsg sometime in the future though. As
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the case of the X15, there are not only 4 on die PRU's, but there are 4
>>>>>> IPU's( 2 usable for general purpose ), and two DSP's( on the dual core
>>>>>> A15
>>>>>> ). I've no idea what TI has compiler / assembler wise for these DSP's but
>>>>>> the IPU's from what I understand are fairly new( in the context of
>>>>>> general
>>>>>> purpose ). So I'd assume this is where remoteproc / rpmsg will make the
>>>>>> most sense. the on die IPU's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:39 PM, William Hermans <yyrk...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *William,*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * I must be missing something, because I see remoteproc as a*
>>>>>>>> * communication and management mechanism for code on CPUs other
>>>>>>>> than the*
>>>>>>>> * main processor. The actual code that you are running on those*
>>>>>>>> * subsidiary processors does not depend on the mechanism you use
>>>>>>>> for*
>>>>>>>> * talking to it (other than the parts that do the talking, of
>>>>>>>> course).*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * In particular, running ADC, I2C or GPIO should be the same,
>>>>>>>> regardless*
>>>>>>>> * whether you use remoteproc or not---what changes is how you tell
>>>>>>>> this*
>>>>>>>> * code what to do.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Does it make sense to you?*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What it is suppose to do hs always made sense to me. How exactlyit
>>>>>>> is done, is another story.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with uio_prussdrv, you have a driver module, which sets various
>>>>>>> things up, loads the PRU binary, and then enables / runs the PRU(s). On
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> PRU side, the code runs, communicates with various peripherals as
>>>>>>> needed(
>>>>>>> usually one, if any ), and then the PRU code performs it's function as
>>>>>>> specified in assembly. Sometimes, dumping data into ddr3( as per the
>>>>>>> example ), and sometimes not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, the above is a fairly rough description, but how each aspect
>>>>>>> communicates with the other is abundantly clear in code. Some have even
>>>>>>> attempted to describe what happens, but if you ask me inadequately. No
>>>>>>> matter though the code is pretty clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With remoteproc, the Documentation/*txt documentation is very
>>>>>>> minimal, and does not describe the process in which it works very well.
>>>>>>> However, the code is fairly clear as to how the ARM, and PRU sides
>>>>>>> communicate with one another( rpmsg ). However, what is not clear, is
>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>> the PRU code actually manipulates the physics on system hardware.
>>>>>>> Additionally, to confuse matters even more, the assembler has changed
>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>> compiler( C - clpru ), and there is something like "map" files for
>>>>>>> hardware
>>>>>>> configuration that do not seem to be very well documented. Just some
>>>>>>> examples, that are not very clear as to how, or why these are even
>>>>>>> needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So here I am, attempting to learn a few things new to me.
>>>>>>> Documentation is very poor, TI refuses to answer any questions in
>>>>>>> relation
>>>>>>> to PRUs on their e2e forums(" go to beagleboard.org google groups .
>>>>>>> . ." ). I spend several days learning about everything PRU related, and
>>>>>>> immediately pick up the concept of uio_prussdrv. Still having a hard
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>> with the TI C compiler on the PRU side of things, largely due to these
>>>>>>> mysterious configuration files. But no matter, the TI Assembler is
>>>>>>> fairly
>>>>>>> straight forward, the PRU instruction set is a minimal Cortex M3 set,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> easy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, for context of my competence level. Not long ago I wrote a
>>>>>>> set of processes / applications to read from the CANBUS in realtime,
>>>>>>> decode
>>>>>>> the CANBUS data, and shuffle this decoded data out over a websocket.
>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>> required me learning several aspect of Linux systems programming from
>>>>>>> scratch. Including POSIX shared memory files, socketCAN, and process
>>>>>>> spawning / management. All from scratch, since this was my first major
>>>>>>> Linux application. All of this including reverse engineering parts of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> high level CANBUS protocol took me around a month. The point here is, I
>>>>>>> have no problem picking up / understanding technologies, and / or API's,
>>>>>>> libraries, and such that I've previously have had no experience with.
>>>>>>> *So
>>>>>>> long* as there is at least a little decent documentation on the
>>>>>>> subject, or
>>>>>>> I can talk to someone who does understand things that may be confusing
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Additionally, I'm not saying exactly that remoteproc can't be made
>>>>>>> to work, because obviously it can. What I am saying is that since the
>>>>>>> concept is so poorly documented, is still in experimental phase, and
>>>>>>> now I
>>>>>>> learn that it is slower than traditional prussdrv drivers / methods.
>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>> it's just not worth my time to even attempt to get working.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That and I *have* spent some time ( roughly a week ), *just because*
>>>>>>> I'm the type that does not mind experimenting with new technology in
>>>>>>> software. But only new technology that is not too argumentative. As my
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>> is far too valuable to me than to screw around with technology that
>>>>>>> honestly makes very little sense to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also for what it is worth. remoteproc / rpmsg in my own mind is far
>>>>>>> more useful in cases where a processor may have multiple application /
>>>>>>> general purpose cores. In that one core can be made to run Linux, while
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> others can be made to run bare metal - Simultaneously. Less useful on
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> case of the PRUs since we already have a software layer that is well
>>>>>>> documented, works very well, and quite honestly far superior to
>>>>>>> remoteproc
>>>>>>> / rpmsg in this case. If nothing else. Speed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Przemek Klosowski <
>>>>>>> przemek.klosow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:45 PM, William Hermans <yyrk...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > Is it really so much to ask for example code to demonstrate how
>>>>>>>> to interact
>>>>>>>> > with the on die hardware ? Without having to download 1GB of
>>>>>>>> pretty much
>>>>>>>> > useless library . . .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> William,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I must be missing something, because I see remoteproc as a
>>>>>>>> communication and management mechanism for code on CPUs other than
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> main processor. The actual code that you are running on those
>>>>>>>> subsidiary processors does not depend on the mechanism you use for
>>>>>>>> talking to it (other than the parts that do the talking, of course).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In particular, running ADC, I2C or GPIO should be the same,
>>>>>>>> regardless
>>>>>>>> whether you use remoteproc or not---what changes is how you tell
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> code what to do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does it make sense to you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>>>> Groups "BeagleBoard" group.
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>>>>>> send an email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>> Groups "BeagleBoard" group.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>>>> send an email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>> Groups "BeagleBoard" group.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>>>> send an email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "BeagleBoard" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> an email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "BeagleBoard" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> an email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "BeagleBoard" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "BeagleBoard" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "BeagleBoard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "BeagleBoard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
--
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
