Xilinx IP core drivers for RTEMS- diff attached

[Robert S. Grimes]

Keith Robertson wrote:
> 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.
>   
Agreed!

When might you get around to doing this, Greg?

Thanks!