RE: [ECOS] malloc vs. new

[Daniel Leu <daniel_leu@inicore.com>]

Hello Thomas,

I saw your posting regarding the separation of the AT91/HAL 
and I think this is the right way to proceed. Could you 
please email me your latest copy? Thanks.

We have a development board running eCos 1.3 on it. I 
kind of waited with the porting to eCos 2.0 until your
patch is incorporated. But since this won't happen 
soon, I guess I start with the migration anyway...
Specially it should be much easier based on your 
modifs :)

BTW, if anyone is interest on a AT91R40807 with 2Mbyte
SRAM, ample of Flash, a big FPGA etc.... Have a look
at www.inicore.com/products/sdb.htm

Thanks,
Daniel



At 11:33 AM 6/25/2002 +0200, Koeller, T. wrote:
>Scott,
>
>it may be of interest to you that I did quite a lot of work on the
>AT91/EB40. I separated the existing HAL into an AT91-specific variant
>HAL and a EB40-specific platform HAL. This is the standard ecos way of
>dealing with platforms that are variations of a common underlying
>archtecture. You can then create a platform HAL with minimum effort,
>and there you can set your platform's parameters to anything you like
>without changing the AT91 HAL. This also means that you do not have to
>release your source code under the GPL, as would be the case if you just
>modify an existing component.
>
>I submitted my changes to the ecos-patches mailing list, but the haven't
>been approved yet. There's also a newer, improved version that I did not
>submit yet, because such submissions are not currently processed. However,
>if anyone is interested, I'd like to share my code with him/her.
>
>tk
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Scott Dattalo [mailto:scott@dattalo.com]
>> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:23 PM
>> Cc: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
>> Subject: RE: [ECOS] malloc vs. new
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Scott Dattalo wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> I fixed my memory problem.
>> 
>> It turns out that my application is big. It's too big to fit into the
>> memory footprint provided bythe At91EB40 evaluation board. I 
>> know in the
>> future that I will be putting the application in different 
>> hardware, but
>> I'm using the eCos configuration that's available for the 
>> EB40. To make a
>> long story short, the memory foot print is defined for the AT91EB40 in
>> here:
>> 
>> ecos/packages/hal/arm/at91/current/include/pkgconf/
>> 
>> The RAM size is 0x80000. To work around this, I made a backup 
>> of pkgconf/ 
>> and changed all references of 0x80000 to 0x200000 and that works!
>> 
>> I know that one shouldn't go around trampling on the ecos 
>> sources in such 
>> a way. But, what is the preferred way to change the memory 
>> foot print? 
>> Should I create a new cdl for my hardware based on (say) the 
>> arm/at91/ and 
>> edit those hardware-specific changes? It doesn't appear that 
>> fundamental 
>> configuration such as this can be changed in ecos.ecc. (You 
>> *can* change 
>> the size of the memalloc heap, but you can't make it bigger than the 
>> memory footprint that's defined in pkgconf/, AFAICT).
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Before posting, please read the FAQ: 
>> http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
>> and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss
>> 
>----------------------------------------------- 
>Thomas Koeller, Software Development 
>
>Basler Vision Technologies 
>An der Strusbek 60-62 
>22926 Ahrensburg 
>Germany 
>
>Tel +49 (4102) 463-390 
>Fax +49 (4102) 463-46390
>
>mailto:Thomas.Koeller@baslerweb.com 
>http://www.baslerweb.com 
>
>
>
>-- 
>Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
>and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss


-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss