From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5509 invoked by alias); 12 May 2006 11:05:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 5492 invoked by uid 22791); 12 May 2006 11:05:05 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from londo.lunn.ch (HELO londo.lunn.ch) (80.238.139.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 May 2006 11:04:53 +0000 Received: from lunn by londo.lunn.ch with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1FeVRp-000511-00; Fri, 12 May 2006 13:04:41 +0200 Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 11:05:00 -0000 To: John Eigelaar Cc: ecos-devel@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: AT91SAM7X Port Message-ID: <20060512110441.GA23687@lunn.ch> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 From: Andrew Lunn X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 11:21:57AM +0200, John Eigelaar wrote: > Hi, > > During the next week I wil be starting with a new project on the > AT91SAM7X256. I will definitely be using eCos for the project hence a few > questions: > > * Has anyone done a port for the SAM7X, I don't want to re-invent the > wheel, if so where can I get hold of it ? Not yet. There is a strong chance that i will need such a port next month. If this happens i will be tasked by my employer to make the port. So if you are doing a port i suggest we work together. Which of the X peripherals are you interested in? I need an Ethernet driver which i can connect to lwip. > * If I have to roll my own would it be a good idea to patch the SAM7S port > to support the SAM7X as well or would it be better to start with a clean > SAM7X variant based on the SAM7S ? My current feeling is add support for the X to the existing S. Handling the ethernet driver should not be a problem. Make a cdl interface in the AT91 ETH package which any HAL with the required hardware supports should implement. Same goes for the CAM, and other bits of hardware the X has but not the S. What may be more of a problem is the two GPIO controllers. The existing code, var HAL, SPI, USART etc, assumes that the pins they use are on GPIO port A. If this is not true with the X it might get messy. We need to compare the S and X and see what is connected where with respect to the GPIO controllers. The other change that will be needed is in the flash driver. It queries the device ID to see if it is a supported device and how big the flash is. This will need extending with the ID of the X. Otherwise, i think a basic port should be quite easy. Andrew