On 17/6/2023 5:14 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 2:17 AM Philip Kirkpatrick > <p.kirkpatr...@reflexaerospace.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 7:14 AM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 15/6/2023 6:16 pm, Philip Kirkpatrick wrote: >>>> Thanks for all the good feedback. >>>> >>>> RE Joel: >>>> I'll fix my sloppy formatting that you caught and submit a revised patch. >>>> If >>>> I'm realistic about my schedule, I probably won't be able to get to it >>>> until >>>> next week. >>>> For xttcps_hw.h, there already is one #ifndef __rtems__ around the >>>> #includes, >>>> but on review there is another spot where I got lazy and used a #if 0. >>>> I'll >>>> correct that too. Other than that, the file is unmodified. >>>> >>>> On the discussion about a shared space, I'll leave that decision up to you. >>>> Tell me what you want and I can adjust as needed, or it could be done in a >>>> follow-on patch. >>> >>> Should the RPU BSP be located under bsps/arm/xilinx-rpu? >> >> >> I went back and forth on that decision and decided to keep them combined >> since the APU and RPU share a moderate amount of code. However, I can >> definitely see an argument that they are different enough to split. If you >> want it the other way, I can make that change when I address the other items.
Thanks, I think this is worth while. > I think we should split it out. Shared code should likely be > refactored to arm/shared depending what that is. Agreed. I am fine with the code moving, leaving the arm/xilinx-zynqmp BSP as is because it may be removed (see below). > I'm not sure that carrying forward a 32-bit arm/xilinx-zynqmp makes > sense now that we have a functional aarch64 port. Splitting the RPU > out will make it easier to make that decision. I agree. I think it is confusing. I also think it should happen before 6. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
