[ECOS] PC targets and ethernet

[ECOS] PC targets and ethernet

[Jani Monoses]

Hello

there are 3 pc targets in ecos.db which only differ in the ETH drivers they
use.I made a new one for use in the qemu simulator and had to use yet another
eth driver (amd pcnet)
I propose adding a target (it used to be one called pc) which has no ethernet
so that one can chose what eth driver to add without modifying ecos.db
From what I saw once you go with a target you cannot remove packages.

Comments?
Jani

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

Re: [ECOS] PC targets and ethernet

[Andrew Lunn]

> From what I saw once you go with a target you cannot remove packages.
> 
> Comments?

ecosconfig remove <packagename>

works. What you cannot do is remove a packege using an import file and
ecosconfig import.
        
        Andrew

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

[ECOS] Re: PC targets and ethernet

[John Dallaway]

Hi Jani

Jani Monoses wrote:

> there are 3 pc targets in ecos.db which only differ in the ETH drivers they
> use.I made a new one for use in the qemu simulator and had to use yet another
> eth driver (amd pcnet)
> I propose adding a target (it used to be one called pc) which has no ethernet
> so that one can chose what eth driver to add without modifying ecos.db
> From what I saw once you go with a target you cannot remove packages.

The scheme you propose will not work with the eCos Configuration Tool 
which prevents users from adding/removing _hardware_ packages from their 
configuration. However, I think it does make sense to define a "pc" 
target without ethernet driver anyway for those users who have no 
supported ethernet hardware.

John Dallaway
eCosCentric Limited

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

Re: [ECOS] Re: PC targets and ethernet

[Andrew Lunn]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 09:23:33PM +0100, John Dallaway wrote:
> Hi Jani
> 
> Jani Monoses wrote:
> 
> >there are 3 pc targets in ecos.db which only differ in the ETH drivers they
> >use.I made a new one for use in the qemu simulator and had to use yet 
> >another
> >eth driver (amd pcnet)
> >I propose adding a target (it used to be one called pc) which has no 
> >ethernet
> >so that one can chose what eth driver to add without modifying ecos.db
> >From what I saw once you go with a target you cannot remove packages.
> 
> The scheme you propose will not work with the eCos Configuration Tool 
> which prevents users from adding/removing _hardware_ packages from their 
> configuration.

lunn@londo:~/eCos$ ecosconfig new csb281
lunn@londo:~/eCos/tmp$ ecosconfig remove CYGPKG_DEVS_ETH_INTEL_I82559
lunn@londo:~/eCos/tmp$ 

package CYGPKG_DEVS_ETH_INTEL_I82559 {
        alias           { "Intel 82559 ethernet driver"
                           devs_eth_intel_i82559 i82559_eth_driver }
        hardware
        directory       devs/eth/intel/i82559
        script          intel_i82559_eth_drivers.cdl
        description     "Ethernet driver for Intel 82559 NIC."
}

So I presume you mean the GUI tool has this limitation. It seems the
CLI tool has no problems with this.

Question: Why should hardware packages not be removable?

        Andrew

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

[ECOS] Re: PC targets and ethernet

[John Dallaway]

Hi Andrew

Andrew Lunn wrote:

>>The scheme you propose will not work with the eCos Configuration Tool 
>>which prevents users from adding/removing _hardware_ packages from their 
>>configuration.
> 
> lunn@londo:~/eCos$ ecosconfig new csb281
> lunn@londo:~/eCos/tmp$ ecosconfig remove CYGPKG_DEVS_ETH_INTEL_I82559
> lunn@londo:~/eCos/tmp$ 
> 
> package CYGPKG_DEVS_ETH_INTEL_I82559 {
>         alias           { "Intel 82559 ethernet driver"
>                            devs_eth_intel_i82559 i82559_eth_driver }
>         hardware
>         directory       devs/eth/intel/i82559
>         script          intel_i82559_eth_drivers.cdl
>         description     "Ethernet driver for Intel 82559 NIC."
> }
> 
> So I presume you mean the GUI tool has this limitation. It seems the
> CLI tool has no problems with this.

Correct. Hence my reference to "eCos Configuration Tool" rather than 
"ecosconfig" above.

> Question: Why should hardware packages not be removable?

This was a design decision intended to prevent users from modifying 
their configuration to such an extent that it was effectively targetting 
a different board. The eCos Configuration Tool uses the selected 
"Hardware Template" (target) for more than just package selection. For 
example, the "Run Tests" feature requires knowledge of the selected board.

John Dallaway
eCosCentric Limited

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

[ECOS] Re: PC targets and ethernet

[Andrew Lunn]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:15:09AM +0100, John Dallaway wrote:
> Hi Andrew
> 
> Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 
> >>The scheme you propose will not work with the eCos Configuration Tool 
> >>which prevents users from adding/removing _hardware_ packages from their 
> >>configuration.
> >
> >lunn@londo:~/eCos$ ecosconfig new csb281
> >lunn@londo:~/eCos/tmp$ ecosconfig remove CYGPKG_DEVS_ETH_INTEL_I82559
> >lunn@londo:~/eCos/tmp$ 
> >
> >package CYGPKG_DEVS_ETH_INTEL_I82559 {
> >        alias           { "Intel 82559 ethernet driver"
> >                           devs_eth_intel_i82559 i82559_eth_driver }
> >        hardware
> >        directory       devs/eth/intel/i82559
> >        script          intel_i82559_eth_drivers.cdl
> >        description     "Ethernet driver for Intel 82559 NIC."
> >}
> >
> >So I presume you mean the GUI tool has this limitation. It seems the
> >CLI tool has no problems with this.
> 
> Correct. Hence my reference to "eCos Configuration Tool" rather than 
> "ecosconfig" above.

Thats what i thought you meant, but to me, ecosconfig is also an eCos
Configuration Tool. 

> >Question: Why should hardware packages not be removable?
> 
> This was a design decision intended to prevent users from modifying 
> their configuration to such an extent that it was effectively targetting 
> a different board. The eCos Configuration Tool uses the selected 
> "Hardware Template" (target) for more than just package selection. For 
> example, the "Run Tests" feature requires knowledge of the selected board.

OK. 

This leads to the counter question. Is ecosconfig broken? Should it
also not allow hardware targets to be removed?

        Andrew

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

[ECOS] Re: PC targets and ethernet

[John Dallaway]

Hi Andrew

Andrew Lunn wrote:

>>>Question: Why should hardware packages not be removable?
>>
>>This was a design decision intended to prevent users from modifying 
>>their configuration to such an extent that it was effectively targetting 
>>a different board. The eCos Configuration Tool uses the selected 
>>"Hardware Template" (target) for more than just package selection. For 
>>example, the "Run Tests" feature requires knowledge of the selected board.
> 
> OK. 
> 
> This leads to the counter question. Is ecosconfig broken? Should it
> also not allow hardware targets to be removed?

ecosconfig has no need to impose the restriction detailed above. It 
could be argued that the GUI and CLUI tools should be consistent in this 
respect. However, there may be objections to imposing such a restriction 
on ecosconfig users.

John Dallaway
eCosCentric Limited

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

Re: [ECOS] Re: PC targets and ethernet

[Gary Thomas]

On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 02:49, John Dallaway wrote:
> Hi Andrew
> 
> Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 
> >>>Question: Why should hardware packages not be removable?
> >>
> >>This was a design decision intended to prevent users from modifying 
> >>their configuration to such an extent that it was effectively targetting 
> >>a different board. The eCos Configuration Tool uses the selected 
> >>"Hardware Template" (target) for more than just package selection. For 
> >>example, the "Run Tests" feature requires knowledge of the selected board.
> > 
> > OK. 
> > 
> > This leads to the counter question. Is ecosconfig broken? Should it
> > also not allow hardware targets to be removed?
> 
> ecosconfig has no need to impose the restriction detailed above. It 
> could be argued that the GUI and CLUI tools should be consistent in this 
> respect. However, there may be objections to imposing such a restriction 
> on ecosconfig users.

Perhaps devices like this (which may or not be present) should just not
be marked as "hardware" in the database.  Would that not work?

-- 
Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>
MLB Associates


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

Re: [ECOS] Re: PC targets and ethernet

[Nick Garnett]

Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> writes:

> On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 02:49, John Dallaway wrote:
> > Hi Andrew
> > 
> > Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > 
> > >>>Question: Why should hardware packages not be removable?
> > >>
> > >>This was a design decision intended to prevent users from modifying 
> > >>their configuration to such an extent that it was effectively targetting 
> > >>a different board. The eCos Configuration Tool uses the selected 
> > >>"Hardware Template" (target) for more than just package selection. For 
> > >>example, the "Run Tests" feature requires knowledge of the selected board.
> > > 
> > > OK. 
> > > 
> > > This leads to the counter question. Is ecosconfig broken? Should it
> > > also not allow hardware targets to be removed?
> > 
> > ecosconfig has no need to impose the restriction detailed above. It 
> > could be argued that the GUI and CLUI tools should be consistent in this 
> > respect. However, there may be objections to imposing such a restriction 
> > on ecosconfig users.
> 
> Perhaps devices like this (which may or not be present) should just not
> be marked as "hardware" in the database.  Would that not work?

While that might solve the problem for PCs, it would then make these
packages optional for all other targets that use them. Which we don't
want to do.

The base problem is that the PC is an unusual target as far as eCos is
concerned. Most boards that have ethernet have the MAC in the
microcontroller or soldered quite firmly to the board. So there is no
question of it being changeable. The PC is different in that any PCI
card can be plugged in. So far we have coped with this quite
successfully by defining different targets for each supported ethernet
card. This is not particularly hard to do -- the ecos.db changes are
trivial compared with creating the target specific package and maybe
modifying the driver to work.

I'm not sure I really like the idea of compromising the functionality
of eCos simply to make a specific, unusual, target slightly more
convenient to use.

-- 
Nick Garnett                    eCos Kernel Architect
http://www.ecoscentric.com/     The eCos and RedBoot experts


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

[ECOS] Re: PC targets and ethernet

[John Dallaway]

Nick Garnett wrote:

>>Perhaps devices like this (which may or not be present) should just not
>>be marked as "hardware" in the database.  Would that not work?
> 
> While that might solve the problem for PCs, it would then make these
> packages optional for all other targets that use them. Which we don't
> want to do.
> 
> The base problem is that the PC is an unusual target as far as eCos is
> concerned. Most boards that have ethernet have the MAC in the
> microcontroller or soldered quite firmly to the board. So there is no
> question of it being changeable. The PC is different in that any PCI
> card can be plugged in. So far we have coped with this quite
> successfully by defining different targets for each supported ethernet
> card. This is not particularly hard to do -- the ecos.db changes are
> trivial compared with creating the target specific package and maybe
> modifying the driver to work.
> 
> I'm not sure I really like the idea of compromising the functionality
> of eCos simply to make a specific, unusual, target slightly more
> convenient to use.

I agree with Nick. Adding a new target record in ecos.db is a simple 
solution to this board-specific problem. It is also more convenient than 
repeatedly adding/removing packages each time a new configuration is 
created.

John Dallaway
eCosCentric Limited

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

Re: [ECOS] Re: PC targets and ethernet

[Jani Monoses]

> > I'm not sure I really like the idea of compromising the functionality
> > of eCos simply to make a specific, unusual, target slightly more
> > convenient to use.
> 
> I agree with Nick. Adding a new target record in ecos.db is a simple 
> solution to this board-specific problem. It is also more convenient than 
> repeatedly adding/removing packages each time a new configuration is 
> created.

I solved my problem (thanks Andrew) by a creating new tree and ecosconfig
remove. But I don't mind adding a non-ethernet pc target to ecos.db if Nick or
John think it's worth the trouble.

Jani

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

Re: [ECOS] Re: PC targets and ethernet

[Andrew Lunn]

> I solved my problem (thanks Andrew) by a creating new tree and
> ecosconfig remove. But I don't mind adding a non-ethernet pc target
> to ecos.db if Nick or John think it's worth the trouble.

It does seem logical to have such a target. Not everybody has an
ethernet.

        Andrew

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

Re: [ECOS] Re: PC targets and ethernet

[andy]

jld@ecoscentric.com wrote:
> Hi Andrew
> 
> Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 
> >>The scheme you propose will not work with the eCos Configuration Tool 
> >>which prevents users from adding/removing _hardware_ packages from their 
> >>configuration.
> > 
> > lunn@londo:~/eCos$ ecosconfig new csb281
> > lunn@londo:~/eCos/tmp$ ecosconfig remove CYGPKG_DEVS_ETH_INTEL_I82559
> > lunn@londo:~/eCos/tmp$ 
> > 
> > package CYGPKG_DEVS_ETH_INTEL_I82559 {
> >         alias           { "Intel 82559 ethernet driver"
> >                            devs_eth_intel_i82559 i82559_eth_driver }
> >         hardware
> >         directory       devs/eth/intel/i82559
> >         script          intel_i82559_eth_drivers.cdl
> >         description     "Ethernet driver for Intel 82559 NIC."
> > }
> > 
> > So I presume you mean the GUI tool has this limitation. It seems the
> > CLI tool has no problems with this.
> 
> Correct. Hence my reference to "eCos Configuration Tool" rather than 
> "ecosconfig" above.
> 
> > Question: Why should hardware packages not be removable?
> 
> This was a design decision intended to prevent users from modifying 
> their configuration to such an extent that it was effectively targetting 
> a different board. The eCos Configuration Tool uses the selected 
> "Hardware Template" (target) for more than just package selection. For 
> example, the "Run Tests" feature requires knowledge of the selected board.
I can understand this decision for most development board applications, but having been messing about with various flavours of PC hardware as an eCos target, it gets frustrating having to create a new target for each one, rather than having a basic setup that I can add hardware packages to.

Would it be possible to have an option making the warning advisory rather than forbidding the action or is there a more fundamental restriction?

(Of course I suppose that could just start using ecosconfig instead, but I've got comfortable with the GUI tool).

> 
> John Dallaway
> eCosCentric Limited
> 
> -- 
> Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
> and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
> 
> 


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