GSoC Proposal : BeagleBoard project

[Christian Mauderer]

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:
> 
>       https://git.rtems.org/rtems-source-builder/tree/rtems/config/graphics
> 
>     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).
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 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>.