Blackfin BSP

[Allan Hessenflow]

Hoan Hoang wrote:
> I'm planning to make a BSP for the EZKIT-BF561 but haven't got time to 
> get there yet also I don't have a GDB compatible Jtag.  I have the 
> HPUSB-ICE but it not compatible with GDB.  I'm looking at USBProg, don't 
> know if that could work.  The price tag for the Icebear is too high and 
> the Igloo is too slow.  Any recomandation ? or anyone know how to make 
> the HPUSB-ICE to work with GDB.

I have no idea on the HPUSB-ICE.  The only JTAG pods I own myself are
Xilinx, one parallel and one USB.  From the discussions at
blackfin.uclinux.org it sounds like there's some hope for the Xilinx
parallel port one (the stuff in the google cache I found are only
reports of problems, with an implication that it is supported.  At the
moment blackfin.uclinux.org seems to be dead so I can't look there
further).  However I doubt that would be any faster than the Igloo.

> I think it is a good idea to have a common Blackfin architecture to make 
> the port easier for other Blackfin processors as well.  Can we use the 
> .h defined in VDSP or may be base on that? 

I don't have VDSP and so haven't seen what they did, but I suspect
there may be license issues with using that.

Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Without a lot other than experience on other architectures
> to go by, I would lean to the second option -- a base
> architecture .h and a model specific one.  It could even
> be structured like this:
> 
> bfXXX.h
>    + define feature flags
>    include bfin shared header file
>   add more definitions
> 
> Then BSPs include a specific bfXXX.h and the shared code
> for maintenance is invisible to them.

This brings up one more point.  Nothing in cpukit cares about any of
the peripherals that are currently defined in bf533.h.  I assume the
file is in there because the peripherals are on the same chip as the
cpu, but I think it would make more sense to move those definitions
somewhere else, like under libbsp/bfin/shared.

allan

-- 
Allan N. Hessenflow      allanh at kallisti.com