[PATCH rtems 2/2] bsps/imxrt: Simplify linkcmds and make it flexible

[Christian Mauderer]

On 09/06/2021 01:52, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 8/6/21 8:26 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> On 08/06/2021 05:07, Chris Johns wrote:
>>> On 7/6/21 6:40 pm, Christian Mauderer wrote:> I think the Options don't need
>>> documentation changes because the options in the
>>>> waf based build system are now documented directly in the yaml files and printed
>>>> if you generate the default config.
>>> Hmm I am not sure I agree with the premise the YAML is the documentation. The
>>> user manual exists for this purpose and user wanting to explore RTEMS would look
>>> there rather than cloning the repo, running commands etc.
>>>
>>> I accept the current defaults etc work flow is a good place to start for the waf
>>> conversion project but we need to do a lot more to make accessing the YAML
>>> easier. The wscript contains the only rtems.git repo means to read the YAML and
>>> the pickled data and that limits how we can change and evolve this.
>>
>> We could use rtems-central to generate sections for the user manual from the
>> build specification. This would be similar to the generation of the glossaries,
>> application configuration option documentation, and the directive documentation.
> 
> Of course we could use it and there are a number of other possible ways we do
> this as well without that repo. The rtems-central repo and work flows have clear
> and defined boundary we have put in place for very good reasons. A move that way
> would be considered creep.
> 
> Chris

Hello Chris,

Gedare mentioned that he is OK with the one-line-command in the manual 
that shows the user how he gets the options (see 
https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-June/067627.html). Is that 
OK for you too? If yes, that would be my preferred solution and you can 
ignore the remaining part of the mail.

If not: I'm OK to automate or at least semi-automate the process of 
generating that part of the manual because I think it's an improvement. 
I'm not OK with a manual step because it increases the maintenance 
effort and the time I have to invest on _every_ commit that is vaguely 
similar to this one. That would mean more frustration for me and less 
time that I have for other stuff.

I can accept that you don't want that kind of automation in 
rtems-central. What would be your preferred solution and location for 
that kind of automation?

Best regards

Christian