GSoC 2014 | Porting RTEMS for OpenRISC
Joel Sherrill
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com
Wed Mar 5 17:01:08 UTC 2014
On 3/5/2014 9:12 AM, Alan Cudmore wrote:
> There is a Microblaze port out there, but it has not been released.
And I would love to see it freed. Bounty to pay for his work is
basically all
it takes.
***Hint to RTEMS users who would like to see Microblaze port.. email me***
> But, I agree that the availability of the toolchain should be a factor.
>
We need to be confident the FSF main source has or soon will have the port.
> Tough call: If we do the microblaze port, it may be duplicating work
> that may eventually become available to the RTEMS project. If we do
> the OpenRISC port, will it have the toolchain support and will it have
> users to keep it from rotting?
>
The OpenRISC folks just started talking copyright assignments to binutils.
So the intent is good but it isn't there yet.
Remember, a full tool chain includes:
+ binutils
+ gcc
+ newlib
+ gdb
+ decent simulator
+ rtems source build configuration files
+ rtems test and sim-scripts support for testing
A porting effort includes work on those to add CPU-*-rtems* to each
before you can fill in the port itself:
+ score/cpu
+ libnetworking in cksum
+ at least one BSP
- community needs one which runs on simulator
All of the above are needed to support the port long term.
I still would like to know how what is called OpenRISC now compares to
what they called OpenRISC 1K and 2K years ago. And if there is any work
in the old port which can be reused.
Also do you have anyone from the OpenCores project who would be willing
to co-mentor? I do not think I know anyone there.
--joel
> Alan
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org
> <mailto:gedare at rtems.org>> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Hesham Moustafa
> <heshamelmatary at gmail.com <mailto:heshamelmatary at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org
> <mailto:gedare at rtems.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Hesham Moustafa
> >>
> >> <heshamelmatary at gmail.com <mailto:heshamelmatary at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Gedare Bloom
> <gedare at rtems.org <mailto:gedare at rtems.org>> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hesham,
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Hesham Moustafa
> >> >> <heshamelmatary at gmail.com <mailto:heshamelmatary at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Long term a port needs to be to a viable architecture
> from a "is it
> >> >> >> alive"
> >> >> >> view this includes the cpu, tools, a way for us to test, etc
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sure, that's what I hope to work on.
> >> >> In order to have a chance that your proposal will be
> accepted, you
> >> >> will need to demonstrate that the openrisc tools work for
> recent gcc /
> >> >> newlib with an adequate simulator. Based on wikipedia, you
> should be
> >> >> able to cross-compile Linux for the OpenRISC to run on Qemu,
> or you
> >> >> may like to just try to get a bare-metal application to run
> in the
> >> >> simulator.
> >> >>
> >> > I have built their latest toolchain, gcc 4.9.0 and binutils
> 2.24.51.
> >> > with newlib. A helloworld program is working fine with
> or1k-elf-run,
> >> > or1k-elf-gdb (which connects to their or1ksim simulator) and
> qemu.
> >> >
> >> > The questions is, should this project include porting their
> toolchains
> >> > to
> >> > RTEMS toolchains (with their copyrights) ? or that may cause some
> >> > licence/copyrights problems ?
> >> In order for RTEMS Project to accept the BSP for inclusion, the GCC
> >> toolchain must be available and prepared for upstream
> submission. If
> >> there is already OpenRISC (or1k) support accepted by GCC for
> linux, it
> >> should be straightforward to make it work for RTEMS. You will
> need to
> >> propose it as part of your GSOC, and you will need to make the
> proper
> >> steps including submitting FSF paperwork for contributing to GCC.
> >
> > They have their latest toolchain at github [1]. Also there is a
> linux port
> > that can work
> > on both or1ksim and real HW FPGA [2]. Not sure how the project would
> > interface/interact with the existing or1k toolchain at github,
> gcc, and
> > RTEMS. I would
> > appreciate more clarification about this issue.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/openrisc/or1k-src
> > [2] http://openrisc.net/toolchain-build.html
> If the or1k toolchain is not already upstream to GCC, you will need to
> provide a solution for a workable toolchain for users, probably by
> integrating the toolchain build into the RTEMS Source Builder. You
> should also push patches to GCC if possible. You should do an analysis
> of how much difference there is between the or1k toolchain and the
> vanilla GCC/binutils/newlib, and figure out if there is any reason
> other than laziness that the or1k maintainers have not pushed their
> toolchain into the upstream gcc / sourceware repositories.
>
> I'm hesitant to accept any port that lacks a dedicated RTEMS
> maintainer or tools maintained upstream in gcc.
>
> At least for microblaze we know there exists some toolchain support
> already. I'm not sure if there is enough left to do with the
> microblaze port to warrant a GSOC or not. You would have to inquire
> with the developers who have done work on it already.
>
> -Gedare
>
> >>
> >> -Gedare
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-devel mailing list
> rtems-devel at rtems.org <mailto:rtems-devel at rtems.org>
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
>
>
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140305/a3174661/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the devel
mailing list