Re: [ECOS] Recommodation for start of new chip-family support

[Ross Younger <wry at ecoscentric dot com>]

Manuel Borchers wrote:
> So, why don't I want to make board-level ports? Because there is much
> common board-level init stuff (configuring multiplex options for IOs,
> the simple polles UART code most ARM ports are using, ...) 
> [...]
> Wouldn't be a variant port be better in this scenario?

I'm not sure variants are the right answer here, but I'm prepared to be
proven wrong.

You could create a single board HAL to cope with all the boards, with
appropriate CDL options to select between them. You would still create
multiple target entries in ecos.db - they would set_value appropriately as
well as pulling in the right set of hardware packages.

Also, you might put common code like the UART drivers into their own
package(s) and pull them in from the relevant targets. It can be tricky to
judge whether this is better than putting the code in a single board HAL -
might the code be reusable on other CPUs of the same family on different boards?


Ross

-- 
Embedded Software Engineer, eCosCentric Limited.
Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge CB5 8UU, UK.
Registered in England no. 4422071.                  www.ecoscentric.com

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