From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9495 invoked by alias); 12 May 2006 12:05:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 9483 invoked by uid 22791); 12 May 2006 12:05:50 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,SARE_HELO_EQ_DSL_3,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 May 2006 12:05:48 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1FeWOi-0002wF-0h for ecos-devel@sources.redhat.com; Fri, 12 May 2006 14:05:32 +0200 Received: from dsl-145-157-123.telkomadsl.co.za ([165.145.157.123]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 12 May 2006 14:05:32 +0200 Received: from jeigelaar by dsl-145-157-123.telkomadsl.co.za with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 12 May 2006 14:05:32 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ecos-devel@sources.redhat.com From: John Eigelaar Subject: Re: AT91SAM7X Port Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 12:05:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <20060512110441.GA23687@lunn.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl-145-157-123.telkomadsl.co.za User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table) 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/msg00012.txt.bz2 On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:04:41 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > 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. SPI, UART, EMAC with lwip, probably the same as you do ... > > 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. I agree, the X and the S is close enough to each other that you would be missing out in terms of bug fixes and patches if you split them. > > 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. This is actually a problem with the existing S port as well, as the alternative peripheral pinouts is not really addressed. This might be a good oppurtunity to devise a proper solution for this if we are forced to. > 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. Should be straight forward ... (Famous last words) > Otherwise, i think a basic port should be quite easy. Agreed John Eigelaar