[PATCH] ZYNQ BSP

[Gedare Bloom]

For #2, we can put it somewhere to be done and maybe get someone who
does not have access to the headers to do the work. I'm pretty sure
offering such an interoperability layer is an OK thing, and doing so
without looking at the headers should avoid copyright violations, but
ianal :)

For now I guess it is ok.
-Gedare

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Claus, Ric <claus at slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> 1) There's quite a bit of code in those libraries.  Basically, they provide all the 'action' where I provided just 'framework'.
> 2) I had an idea yesterday that made this seem fairly simple.  It took care of all the '#include's, functions and macros.  Then I realized there are still the register definition macros to deal with.  Besides being an awful lot of typing or copying, I wonder at what point doing that becomes a copyright infringement.  In essence, I'd effectively be taking the header files.
>
> Ric
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Chris Johns [chrisj at rtems.org]
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 3:53 PM
> To: Claus, Ric
> Cc: Gedare Bloom; RTEMS Devel
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ZYNQ BSP
>
> Hi Ric,
>
> Many thanks for submitting this BSP.
>
> Claus, Ric wrote:
>> Answers:
>> 1) No, not at this stage.
>
> What are these libraries providing ?
> How much code is this ?
>
>> 2) No, unfortunately not.  I had hoped to provide a way to deal with this, but there are too many things pressing.
>
> Great to know it is just a matter of effort.
>
> Chris