Blackfin BSP

Hoan Hoang hoan at
Wed Dec 5 13:44:49 UTC 2007

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 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? 

Allan Hessenflow wrote:
> Hello,
> I've started on a BSP for a bf537 based board.  I took a copy of the
> ezkit533 bsp and, with only trivial changes, got it to work on the
> bf537.  So I'm about to start writing drivers for some additional
> peripherals, most significantly the ethernet module in the bf537.
> Since this is a BSP I'll be able to contribute back to RTEMS, I
> thought I'd ask if there's any preference on how to do the peripheral
> definitions.  Currently, under cpukit, there's a bf533.h that defines
> the locations of the peripherals that chip has.  There is a lot in
> common between different members of the blackfin family, so the bf537
> definitions could easily be put in the same file, controlling the
> differences with a CPU model define.  In that case I'd rename it to
> something more generic.  Or, the definitions could be put in a new
> file, bf537.h; that file would then duplicate most, if not all, of the
> contents of bf533.h.  Personally I'd prefer the former to eliminate
> that duplication.  I only see a couple of advantages to the latter -
> there wouldn't be any additional #ifdef's, and it would cut down on the
> changes I'd be making to files that are maintained by someone else.
> allan

More information about the users mailing list