GSoC 2020: Implementation of OFW functions

[Niteesh G. S.]

On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 1:21 PM Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:

> On 07/05/2020 09:35, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
>
> > This is what I was trying to convey in one of the previous mails.
> > https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-May/059717.html
> > But in that mail, I was planning to replace KOBJLOOKUP.
> > Should I start working on it? From the top of my mind, the following has
> > to be done.
> > 1) Import openfirm.c openfirm.h, ofw_fdt.c
> > 2) Add ofw_fdt.h since all the functions in ofw_fdt are static.
> > Should we also import ofw_if.h? Because that is where OFW_* functions
> > are defined or just add a ofw_rtems_map.h which redefines them, instead
> > of importing ofw_if.h?
>
> The KOBJ stuff in the OFW support enables FreeBSD to have three
> different implementations of the OFW API which can be selected at runtime:
>
> sys/powerpc/ofw/ofw_real.c
> sys/dev/ofw/ofw_standard.c
> sys/dev/ofw/ofw_fdt.c
>
> In libbsd this is already short cut to the FDT implementation:
>
> #ifndef __rtems__
> static ofw_def_t    *ofw_def_impl = NULL;
> #else /* __rtems__ */
> #define    ofw_def_impl (&ofw_fdt)
> #endif /* __rtems__ */
>
> To me this looks like the KOBJ stuff was just used to enable some sort
> of object oriented programming. Do we need this flexibility at runtime
> in RTEMS? I would say no. I would hard wire this to the FDT
> implementation. If someone has a problem with it in the future, this
> decision can be readdressed.
>

Ok. But what is the neatest way to hardwire this to the FDT implementation?
One way as Christian mentioned would be to redefine OFW_* functions to
call the functions in ofw_fdt.c directly. Is there any other way?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20200507/96dd8edb/attachment-0001.html>