Xilinx IP core drivers for RTEMS- diff attached

Keith Robertson kjrobert at alumni.uwaterloo.ca
Thu Dec 7 14:02:20 UTC 2006

gregory.menke at gsfc.nasa.gov wrote:
> Robert S. Grimes writes:
>  > Hi Keith, Pete, Greg, et. al.
>  > 
>  > This has finally bubbled up to the top for me, and I am finally getting back
>  > to the task at hand - getting RTEMS up on Virtex-4 FX60.
>  > 
>  > >  >> Keith wrote:
>  > > >> I'm in favour of this being checked straight into a new xilinx or
>  > > >> virtex 405 bsp...
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Pete wrote:
>  > > > I also vote for a separate BSP.
>  > I agree - separate BSP.  But, maybe I'm a bit off on a tangent here, but
>  > there is another issue I've been thinking about over the past several
>  > months.  The V2/V4 really don't represent simple boards, in the BSP sense.
>  > So starting a new BSP may not be sufficient for all users, unless we are
>  > willing/able to define a "standard platform".  For example, I personally
>  > don't like the default naming for components that Xilinx EDK generates.
>  > Another example, address generation may vary.  Or maybe I'm looking at this
>  > wrong, and what we really will need to do is define the constraints on the
>  > EDK design, instead of the other way around?  Seems a little odd, at first -
>  > the BSP defining the "board", instead of the other way 'round, but is this
>  > the way to go?
> I like the new bsp idea as well.  Maybe the thing to do is create a
> "virtex4" bsp containing a copy of the gen405 bsp as-is, then I could
> check in my patches against the new virtex bsp.

Sounds good.  Perhaps 'virtex' is a better name however.  There's 
hardcore ppc405's in the virtex 2 pro, virtex4 fx, and to be released 
virtex5 fx.



More information about the users mailing list