On 02/12/2019 23:24, Chris Johns wrote:
On 2/12/19 5:42 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 01/12/2019 23:53, Chris Johns wrote:
On 27/11/19 11:26 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 27/11/2019 13:17, Hesham Almatary wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 11:59, Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
On 27/11/2019 12:49, Hesham Almatary wrote:
Hi Sebastian,
Thanks for that great effort. I'd aim to use this build system for my
RISC-V development.
I followed the user manual trying to build RISC-V targets and RTEMS
(aaf7f8b84) and here are a few comments:
* .waf bsp_defaults doesn't give an error when mistyping the BSP name,
but just outputs an empty .ini file.
If there is no matching BSP, then you get nothing. I think this is the
right thing to do.
If the user does not enter the correct BSP name we should provide an relevant
error message on stderr and return a non-zero error code. I believe we should
not silently move past an error without a clear indication there is a problem.
We are talking here about the "./waf bsp_defaults" command. I think it is
perfectly fine to output nothing if there is nothing to output. This is the
normal UNIX style. What happens if you grep for something which doesn't exits?
Anyway, I changed the command like this:
$ ./waf bsp_defaults --rtems-specs=spec/build/cpukit
# The build specification contains no BSPs
$ ./waf bsp_defaults --rtems-bsps=foobar,perfection
# No BSP matches with the specified patterns: 'foobar', 'perfection'
Unix commands often cannot change because of the things users have built up
around them. It does not mean what is provided is the right way. What we are
discussing is going to be around a long time and we need to examine the detail
so we can avoid breaking users with changes.
In the case of grep it's default if no file names are provided is to read
string. I do not think it relates.
As I said before it makes scripting and tooling around the command problematic
and complicated.
Could you please give an example, why the no output if there is nothing
to output makes scripting and tooling complicated? If you search for the
empty set you get it.
Doing a
./waf bsp_defaults --rtems-bsps=riscv/rv64imac_medany > bsps.ini
is not a recommended use case. You should only set the necessary minimum
of options.
If this documented?
Yes, but apparently not good enough. I will try to fix this.
Great.
Not sure, I only wanted to build a specific BSP variant without having
to build all variants. Is that not recommended?
This is fine, but I would not dump all options into the config.ini, maybe just:
[riscv/rv64imac_medany]
COMPILER = clang
BUILD_TESTS = True
How do you get a list of valid options and values to know what to set and not
set?
You get the options with default values via "./waf bsp_defaults". You should
only set options for which you don't like the default value. For example, some
BSPs allow you to set the initial value of some registers, e.g.
# initial BUCSR value
QORIQ_INITIAL_BUCSR = 0x01400201
Lets suppose a chip errata appears and it says you have to set the undocumented
bit 31 to activate an errata workaround. You change the value in the build
specification to 0x81400201 in the RTEMS sources. Everyone who did a
./waf bsp_defaults --rtems-bsps=xxx > config.ini
will not profit from this bug fix.
I understand this however my next question was ...
If you do not providing a value do you get your current version's default? Does
this make updating defaults in rtems.git more complicated?
Often a BSP is based on the developers set up and a specific project. This is a
fair thing to do and I fine with that happening. A number of "defaults" are
actually "settings" for a project. In the case of the example you give above if
that register already has a local setting for another reason that RTEMS has not
adopted you have a conflict that needs to be exposed and resolved. We will never
achieve a unified set of defaults.
Ok, it seems there are counter examples for everything if it comes to
BSP configuration.
The issue I am attempting to address is present no matter what solution you
provide. I am wondering if in time we need to add some sort of diff and conflict
resolution tool so a user can see how they stand against the defaults in any
release we make? We cannot solve the problem however we can provide a standard
way our users can.
Adding a diff command would be easy, but I don't think we should
overburden the new build system with features before it is in wide
spread use. You can already do it with the existing command:
./waf bsp_defaults --rtems-bsps=somebsp > defaults.ini
diff -u myconfig.ini defaults.ini
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.
Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
