Chat

[Joel Sherrill]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 9:58 AM Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 5:34 AM Kuan-Hsun Chen <c0066c at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Benson,
>>
>> Regarding Discord for RTEMS, here you go: https://discord.gg/TKhmGt8p.
>>
>> Best,
>> Kuan-Hsun
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 1:21 PM Mathew Benson <mbenson at windhoverlabs.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a Slack or Discord channel to discuss RTEMS?  I don't want to
>>> flood everybody's inbox with emails.
>>>
>>>
> As well, for this kind of development work (porting RTEMS), you can bring
> your discussions and questions over to devel at rtems.org.
>
>
>> I want to port RTEMS to the Xilinx Zynq Ultrascale+ R5.  I've taken the
>>> RTEMS training, but that was a couple years ago.  I think I'll be fine once
>>> I can just get through the build system and can focus on just code, but the
>>> build system seems very foreign to me.  There still seems to be either
>>> fragments of an old build system or just files that don't seem to serve any
>>> purpose.  It would appear that "/spec/build/bsps/arm/xilinx-zynqmp" is
>>> where my build set definition begins, but then what is
>>> "/bsps/arm/xilinx-zynqmp/config" for?
>>>
>>>
> We haven't quite divorced ourselves from the older autotools build system,
> but new BSPs/ports (including the aarch64) are not using the old build
> system at all.
>
> The arm/xilinx-zynqmp is a BSP for only the 32-bit arm support of the Zynq
> Ultrascale+ MPSOC specifically tested/used on the Ultra96. It was
> contributed by Dornerworks. I guess this is a little confusing, because now
> we also have bsps/aarch64/xilinx-zynqmp, which provides the 64-bit support.
> At some point, we should be able to deprecate/drop the arm/xilinx-zynqmp
> with the ability to configure the aarch64/xilinx-zynqmp to only run in
> aarch32 mode.
>

Probably worth starting a thread to ask Kinsey about that. I think the user
was trying something like that at one point.

I also think the BSP dornerworks contributed can run under Xen. So that
would have to be accounted for

But I'd focus in r5 simple bsp as an arm CPU with a simple goal of click
tick and interrupts native but using openamp to talk to a host for as much
as possible. I thought someone had openamp working but I just remember it
has been discussed multiple times.


>
>> Also, everything still seems to be organized by architecture, the board.
>>> How do you want the Zynq Ultrascale organized?  It has multiple
>>> architectures on the same SoC.  Should it be under "arm" or "aarch64"?  Is
>>> it possible to build two kernels in a single step, or should it contain an
>>> entry in "arm" for the R5 and an entry in "aarch64" for the A53?
>>>
>>>
> It will be preferred to work on the aarch64 version for the A53 processor.
> The R5 as a standalone would be a BSP under arm though.
>
>
>> --
>>> *Mathew Benson*
>>> CEO | Chief Engineer
>>> Windhover Labs, LLC
>>> 832-640-4018
>>>
>>>
>>> www.windhoverlabs.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> users mailing list
>>> users at rtems.org
>>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Diese Mail wurde mobil geschrieben. Etwaige Rechtschreibfehler sind volle
>> Absicht und als großzügiges Geschenk zu verstehen.
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> users at rtems.org
>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users at rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20210810/47813b5f/attachment.html>