[PATCH v2] STM32 lwIP addition and CMake support

[Robin Müller]

Hi,

I received a reply from STM32 about the licensing issues. They requested
more specific information about the "vendor device restrictions"  for the
HAL code.
The issue is here:
https://github.com/STMicroelectronics/STM32CubeH7/issues/139
Can anyone provide more information about this (maybe even directly in the
issue) ? I can forward it to them as well. Thanks a lot in advance!

Kind Regards
Robin

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 02:45, Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:

> On 28/4/21 2:58 am, Robin Müller wrote:
> > Okay, I can understand that you'd like to have one build system only. We
> had the
> > same issue with a former Makefile build system and the new CMake system
> and
> > decided to make the former system obsolete> because maintaining both of
> them would be too much work
> For RTEMS what we use has been selected for a range of important reasons
> and the
> rtems-central repo and the qual work highlights the importance of those
> decisions. Waf is a python framework for building software and in
> rtems.git our
> build system support is written in a clearly defined portable language with
> power helper libraries. We can run code formatters on our build system,
> have
> unit tests and there is even source level debuggers. We treat the build
> system
> like any other piece of code we have.
>
> > First thing I  can do is that I split up the patch and extract the CMake
> > specific files. Concerning a clean solution to allow users to use CMake
> without
> > introducing files like CMakeLists.txt,
> > I am not sure right now. Extracting the information required by CMake
> would
> > again require scripts to export source files and include paths.
> > The simplest solution would still be a CMakeLists.txt file in the root
> here
> > which simply sets source files and include paths in the parent scope.
> > which would again be another form of maintenance burden because it still
> needs
> > to figure out which port sources to add etc.
>
> What about scons, meson, or a plain Makefile for those who just want to use
> make, then there is GNU make and BSD make, the list is large? Do we open
> the
> repo up so all build systems are welcome? I think we would have to so we
> are not
> picking favourites.
>
> Who tests these build system files when the package is released? As the
> person
> who releases RTEMS I do not have the time or capability to do this.
>
> > The rtems-cmake support is able to live without CMakeLists.txt files in
> RTEMS
> > because the BSP is already compiled at that point. Doing something
> similar
> > would require a similar process like done in the BSP where rtems-lwip is
> > compiled as a static library for a specific BSP,
> > installed somewhere and then an application can link against it while
> also
> > including the headers.
>
> I welcome the idea of rtems-cmake to grow a community of those using cmake
> to
> build RTEMS applications. It is great to see this happening.
>
> > For the RTEMS BSP this is done through provided PKG Config files. It
> just seems
> > like a lot of effort for a comparatively small library.
> > Maybe someone has a better idea?
>
> I do not have a better solution than PKG config. Most build systems provide
> support so it should be something that can be accommodated.
>
> > I am also not sure if users who are used to CMake would not just do the
> same
> > thing I did if there are no CMakeLists.txt files present and the
> > library/repository is simple enough:
>
> I would discourage this and maybe not for the reasons you may be thinking
> of.
> The repo is new and is it is exciting there is work happening on it but in
> time
> it will become stable and it will be released with RTEMS and this puts it
> in the
> same configuration management basket as the BSP (kernel) and tools. The
> RSB can
> build it in a controlled way with reports and you just access it like the
> BSP.
>
> > Add those themselves in the project root or throughout the repository
> fork
> > structure. But it's your call of course. Maybe some more (user) opinions
> would
> > help as well.
>
> I see rtems-cmake providing that role, thank you for it. We have learnt
> the hard
> way over a few decades to be mindful when adding these things. Strong
> portable
> eco-system level interfaces are our focus.
>
> Chris
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20210609/4200666a/attachment.html>