> On 22 Jul 2021, at 6:53 pm, Sebastian Huber > <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: >> On 22/07/2021 10:47, Chris Johns wrote: >>> On 22/7/21 6:37 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> On 22/07/2021 10:33, Chris Johns wrote: >>>>>> and so the arch part is not >>>>>> really needed. My concern is this type code ... >>>>>> >>>>>> https://git.rtems.org/rtems_waf/tree/rtems.py#n758 >>>>>> >>>>>> that breaks. Is this an issue? I think a single `/` in a BSP or family is >>>>>> cleaner. >>>>> Why is this an issue? This BSP family stuff is local to the RTEMS build >>>>> system. >>>> Currently. It is about the symmetry of the naming and how it would look >>>> from >>>> outside. Nothing more. >>> You mean that maybe someone wants to build an application or library for a >>> BSP >>> family? I guess this is currently not supported, but you could do this with >>> the >>> "bsps/powerpc/motorola_powerpc" approach. >> Yes it could happen and this is where the symmetry and the existing code >> matters. For example with `bsps/motorola_powerpc` the code can be easily or >> cleanly extended by looking for `bsps` as an arch and knowing that is a >> `family`. Otherwise the error is `invalid arch/bsp` and then you need check >> two >> lengths etc etc. > > If you want to add this feature, then you have to update the code anyway. You > have to figure out which BSPs belong to a family for example.
Yeap. It is a detail but I am looking ahead. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
