Update Atsam BSP Support

[Chris Johns]

On 15/12/2016 00:54, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> I would like to refresh this topic.
>
> On 05/10/16 16:17, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> That makes sense.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Sebastian Huber
>> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>  wrote:
>>> >One way to keep this in sync would be to simply write the README of
>>> each BSP
>>> >in a certain format, e.g. trac wiki and then simply include the
>>> content from
>>> >Git in trac. For example via a modified variant of
>>> >
>>> >https://trac.edgewall.org/attachment/wiki/MacroBazaar/Include.3.py
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Something like this in trac:
>>> >
>>> >[[RTEMSGitInclude(c/src/lib/libbsp/arm/atsam/README)]]
>>> >
>
> Would it be possible to add such a Trac add-on? I guess I can modify it
> so that it works for our purpose, but I don't know how to install it.

Lets see if this is the way we should go before we head down this path. 
Any support added needs to be secure and this simple issue complicates 
what we can or should use in Trac.

>
> It would be quite nice if we can write BSP README files in
> reStructuredText placed in the Git repository that show up on the wiki.
>

I support using the ReST format.

I am not convinced the Wiki is the best place to land this 
documentation. These READMEs are really good documentation and we need 
better BSP documentation. Having it included in the release 
documentation would be nice.

Why not add this documentation to the rtems-docs.git repo?

Having the BSP doco in the rtems-docs.git repo means we can make and 
publish the doc formats we support, ie HTML and PDF, because that repo 
has all the support needed to build the documentation. It is also 
supported as part of the release procedure.

If the desire is to keep this documentation close to the source, which 
is attractive, and using rtems-docs.git is a good idea then we need to 
figure out how to handle this.

Chris