From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23384 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2010 08:35:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 23327 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2010 08:35:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from 30.mail-out.ovh.net (HELO 30.mail-out.ovh.net) (213.186.62.213) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 08:35:51 +0000 Received: (qmail 14488 invoked by uid 503); 8 Nov 2010 08:13:54 -0000 Received: from b7.ovh.net (HELO mail637.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.57) by 30.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Nov 2010 08:13:54 -0000 Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Nov 2010 10:36:39 +0200 Received: from tga83-1-82-241-52-98.fbx.proxad.net (HELO ?192.168.0.5?) (jf.argentino@osean.fr@82.241.52.98) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Nov 2010 10:36:38 +0200 Message-ID: <4CD7B663.30003@osean.fr> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 08:35:00 -0000 From: Jean-Francois Argentino Reply-To: jf.argentino@osean.fr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.1.6-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergei Gavrikov CC: ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: bsp for Olimex LPC-L2294-8M References: <4CD3EB1B.3000709@osean.fr> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 13156703363555844590 X-Ovh-Remote: 82.241.52.98 (tga83-1-82-241-52-98.fbx.proxad.net) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-patches-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-patches-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 Hello, > I think that to start a process to get CA from FSF is good idea as your > both patches (the second is a fix for one FLASH device driver) have TODO > lines :-) If you think so, I'll discuss with my boss to initiate a CA. Regarding the TODOs, I won't have the time to fix them... Do you want me to remove them from the patches ? > One thought according the selected name for CDL to manage a hardware > variant for the target (CYGPKG_HAL_ARM_LPC2XXX_OLPCL2294_RAMSIZE), for > my taste CDL name to distinguish hardware would be something like > CYGHWR_HAL_ARM_LPC2XXX_OLPCL2294_VARIANT and using such an option you > could enter the changes in HAL startup code and in the target's flash > device driver. Do you think that "CYGHWR_HAL_ARM_LPC2XXX_OLPCL2294_RAMSIZE" is OK? Thus the name (RAMSIZE) still reflect the value behind. By using "CYGHWR_HAL_ARM_LPC2XXX_OLPCL2294_VARIANT", IMHO legal values would better be strings "1M" and "8M", then involve some extra manipulation in preprocessing, which solution do you prefer ? > So, could you, please, re-submit the patch(es) for eCos Bugzilla system > and start the process of obtaining CA (if you can)? At the least, I will > be able to test your changes for 8M variant on OLPCL2294-1M target then. Are you agree that the patch about the sst FLASH memory can be re-submited as is (maybe just removing the TODOs) through the bugzilla ? For the OLPC-L2294-8M patch, I'll discuss with my boss about the CA and I keep you in touch on this mailing-list. > Je vous remercie, A pleasure to contribute. -- Jean-François Argentino OSEAN S.A.S 1024 Chemin des Plantades 83130 LA GARDE FRANCE Tél.: +33 (0)4 94 03 65 84 Fax : +33 (0)4 94 66 62 32 Web: www.osean.fr