Some problems with the libbsd update

[Sebastian Huber]

On 23/08/18 15:40, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Sebastian Huber 
> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de 
> <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
>
>     On 23/08/18 01:13, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
>
>         On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org
>         <mailto:chrisj at rtems.org> <mailto:chrisj at rtems.org
>         <mailto:chrisj at rtems.org>>> wrote:
>
>             On 22/08/2018 22:25, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>             > On 22/08/18 14:06, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>             >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 6:47 AM Sebastian Huber
>             >> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
>         <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>
>             <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
>         <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>>
>             >> <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
>         <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>
>             <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
>         <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>>>> wrote:
>             >>
>             >> It really is necessary to know how the other
>         architectures implement it. Some
>             >> may turn out to be easy. Others like Epiphany and new
>         may never
>             matter.
>             >
>             > If the niche architectures don't use libbsd (which I
>         guess is
>             the case), then
>             > there is no issue at all.
>             >
>
>             Do we document what is supported and what is not supported?
>
>
>         This was largely the point of my response. We don't have a
>         master list of
>         at least the following information:
>
>         + Architectures that support SMP and tested to N cores
>         + Architectures that support TLS
>
>
>     We have the CPU Supplement.
>
>
> You seem to be missing my point entirely. I am not saying the information
> is not available at all. I am saying that there is no central place that
> captures the status of SMP, TLS, libbsd for all architectures. This is
> a marketing and project planning issue -- not a per-architecture
> documentation issue.

The central place for SMP and TLS support is the CPU Supplement.

The libbsd has its own set of documentation files where you could add 
this information.

>
> From a new user's perspective, where do they get the easy answer
> to what's supported on what architectures?

Everyone is free to ask questions on the mailing lists. We have now the 
mostly empty chapter with BSPs in the User Manual. You could also add 
some information here. The question is who has time/budget to do this?

>
> From the perspective of someone looking for a project, where's the
> list of things that need to be done?
>
> From the perspective of considering deprecating an architecture,
> support for TLS could be a factor. Without a master list to check
> against, there is no easy answer.
>
> Master list unfortunately needs to exist in two forms:
>
> + the marketing view which is likely a table.
> + the project planning view which is well served by a set
> of tickets to add TLS per architecture.

Who will work on these tickets? We already have more than hundred 
tickets which are open for a long time. I am not sure if its worth to 
add more tickets which nobody will fix.

-- 
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.