GSoC Proposal : BeagleBoard project
list at c-mauderer.de
Sun Mar 31 18:31:23 UTC 2019
Am 31.03.19 um 19:33 schrieb Vijay Kumar Banerjee:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 1:25 PM Christian Mauderer <list at c-mauderer.de
> <mailto:list at c-mauderer.de>> wrote:
> Am 31.03.19 um 09:08 schrieb Vijay Kumar Banerjee:
> > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 7:27 AM Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org
> <mailto:chrisj at rtems.org>
> > <mailto:chrisj at rtems.org <mailto:chrisj at rtems.org>>> wrote:
> > On 31/3/19 5:05 am, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 5:09 PM Gedare Bloom
> <gedare at rtems.org <mailto:gedare at rtems.org>
> > <mailto:gedare at rtems.org <mailto:gedare at rtems.org>>
> > > <mailto:gedare at rtems.org <mailto:gedare at rtems.org>
> <mailto:gedare at rtems.org <mailto:gedare at rtems.org>>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Remember you can submit your "Final" proposal many times on
> > GSoC site.
> > > I made a few comments just regarding the 'public' view
> of your
> > > project. I think the technical plan looks reasonable, and
> > leave it to
> > > the potential mentors to steer your technical path.
> > >
> > > Gedare
> > >
> > > Thank you for reviewing the proposal. I have made the changes
> > according to the
> > > comments and also have uploaded the final proposal in the summer
> > of code site.
> > How will this be tested?
> > The target is to get a console on display. To test each step, I was
> > planning to write some
> > tests like to test the EDID reading, we can write a test that returns
> > the EDID reading if the
> > display is detected, or an error if it's not there.
> > I think this point is very important and not very clear to me yet. Do
> > you have any suggestions
> > on testing each part of the project and if possible, include them
> in the
> > testsuite?
> > Is https://github.com/littlevgl/lvgl of any value?
> > I had a brief look and this looks really great and can be a nice
> > addition to RTEMS.
> > I think this will go in the "future improvements" (?)
> > Chris
> I would suggest a framebuffer console as the primary target for this
> project. Maybe as an extended goal it could be nice to try the libraries
> already in RSB:
> Adding a new library would be a very extended goal in my view because it
> hast the potential to eat up a lot of time.
> Vijay: I think you most likely need some test application already during
> phase 2? So maybe you should add a point that you want to at least start
> a fb-console there? Alternatively: Some simple test application that
> just draws some dots or lines?
> In phase 3 it would be great to have the graphics libraries as extended
> goal (lower priority than cleanup and getting code merged).
> Thanks for the notes. I have added a point about writing a test
> application in phase 2
> and also mentioned the intention to use the RSB graphics library to get
> a GUI after the
> code gets merged.
It would be great if you could explicitly mention the framebuffer
console at end of phase 2 / begin of phase 3. Alternatively (if you
don't want a console) a test application with <some graphics library>.
More information about the devel