Re: Getting Atmel AT91SAM9 into eCos

[John Dallaway <john@dallaway.org.uk>]

eCos maintainers

John Dallaway wrote:

> Daniel Helgason wrote:
> 
>> I have seen many messages on the eCos mailing lists about getting
>> AT91SAM9 support into eCos. I'm writing directly to you in hopes of
>> getting some movement on this. I know this is off the mailing list but I
>> wanted to get initial input directly from people whose opinions I have
>> come to respect before I add yet another message to the mailing list
>> about this subject.
> 
> [ snip ]
> 
>> If there was ever a time to consider pushing the AT91SAM9 devices into
>> eCos, this could be it! I am asking you for your thoughts on how to
>> proceed from here. Thanks!
> 
> I am not an expert on ARM7/ARM9 differences but there are several eCos
> maintainers who have experience with multiple ARM variants and are well
> positioned to review the AT91SAM9 patch. I do not think motivation
> should be an issue here. We all wish to see eCos move forward and
> AT91SAM9 support is clearly very good for the project.
> 
> My main concern is that we don't break eCos support for older ARM
> platforms in the process of improving the hardware abstraction for
> future platform ports.
> 
> Is there an eCos maintainer with the necessary ARM expertise who can
> volunteer for the review of this contribution?

There has been no response to this.

The review of Evgeniy's patch is particularly important at present to
avoid merging issues for various new and planned platform ports on
ARM7/9. It is also important that the variant abstraction re-work is
reviewed by someone with real expertise in the area.

What do you suggest? Should we ask for a volunteer from the wider eCos
community to review the patch in this instance?

John Dallaway
eCos maintainer