Linker Set Based Initialization

[Joel Sherrill]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Sebastian Huber
> > <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 08/12/15 16:03, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >>>
> >>> What BSPs/architectures have you tested?
> >>
> >>
> >> I temporarily moved the splinkersets01 test to the samples/ticker and
> >> tested that all BSPs build and link this test.
> >>
> >> I executed the splinkersets01 test on sis, psim and
> >> arm_realview_pbx_a9_qemu.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Is this something that breaks on a per BSP basis? or per architecture
> >>> basis?
> >>> I am assuming that since it is linker based, each BSP could have broken
> >>> linkcmds.
> >>> Is that right?
> >>
> >>
> >> It breaks on a per linker command file basis. Since all the maintained
> >> BSPs use a linkercmds.base, which shouldn't be a big issue.
> >>
> >
> > That means a LOT of the BSPs are broken. You have defined maintained in
> your
> > own way.
> > There are only a handful of architectures with linkcmds.base in them:
> >
> > ./or1k/shared/startup/linkcmds.base
> > ./arm/shared/startup/linkcmds.base
> > ./m68k/shared/startup/linkcmds.base
> > ./powerpc/tqm8xx/startup/linkcmds.base
> > ./powerpc/gen5200/startup/linkcmds.base
> > ./powerpc/shared/startup/linkcmds.base
> > ./sparc/shared/startup/linkcmds.base
> >
> > I am not sure how many BSPs within arm, m68k, or powerpc actually use the
> > linkcmds.base.
> >
> > By my count, 13 of 94 BSP families have linkcmds.base.
> >
> >>
> >> For requirements on the linker command file, see new chapter in user
> >> manual. However BSPs should not deal with this in copy and paste linker
> >> command files and instead use a linkercmds.base file.
> >>
> >
> > So 85% of the BSP families don't use linkcmds.base and by the above
> > statement,
> > they must immediately be migrated to linkcmds.base.
> >
> > Unless you have a plan to address this problem, I am on the side of
> > rejecting the
> > part of this patch that changes the initialization.  And the issue must
> be
> > addressed
> > before this can be merged.
> >
> How hard to make updating 1 BSP as a GCI task? Sebastian to mentor... ;-)
>
>
Each architecture needs at least one linkcmds.base. I suspect Sebastian
has to create that for each architecture since is harder.

>From there it should be possible for him to write instructions to convert
a single BSP. Doing a single BSP family should make a nice sized GCI
task.

Worst case, if they all don't get done, we have a check list and
instructions
to work through after the holidays.

Someone (hint Sebastian) must write the GCI instructions and do the
base work. Then we need a list of BSP families that need to be converted.
After that, Gedare or I should be able to generate the set of tasks to
import into the GCI website.

I would prefer that Sebastian co-mentor these so he can answer at least
the questions on the initial tasks students do. The questions should be
repetitive after a bit so improving instructions and other mentors knowing
the information should allow others to help.


> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
> >>
> >> Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
> >> Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
> >> Fax     : +49 89 189 47 41-09
> >> E-Mail  : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
> >> PGP     : Public key available on request.
> >>
> >> Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list
> > devel at rtems.org
> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20151208/d90b404e/attachment-0002.html>