<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>On 08/04/2020 00:59, Chris Johns wrote:<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d1cc99b8-ab84-4d76-06a1-fa0910b8029c@rtems.org">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">This BSP and the
libbsd build system are not good enough right now to add this
BSP to an RSB build set.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree the build system is lacking but I do not see that as the
key issue that has been uncovered. The main issue is the addition
of "special" feature options deep in RTEMS at the BSP level, i.e.
--enable-chip. Doing this in a specific BSP may let this BSP be
functional for its users but it is outside the view of the
ecosystem and as a result the RSB does not have the machinery
present to manage that option. It might be possible I have not
checked. It is really important we all make sure BSPs and build
options are managed in an agreed consistent way so this situation
is avoided.
</blockquote>
<p>I think now is the wrong time to discuss this because the way
BSPs are configured will change with the new build system.</p>
<p>The header files of this BSP support 27 chip variants: same70j19,
same70j20, same70j21, same70n19, same70n20, same70n21, same70q19,
same70q20, same70q21, sams70j19, sams70j20, sams70j21, sams70n19,
sams70n20, sams70n21, sams70q19, sams70q20, sams70q21, samv71j19,
samv71j20, samv71j21, samv71n19, samv71n20, samv71n21, samv71q19,
samv71q20, and samv71q21. What would be your alternative to a BSP
option? <br>
</p>
</body>
</html>