On 28/2/2024 6:44 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 28.02.24 06:48, Chris Johns wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Is this to allow BSP ready output to be created from the build system? > > Yes, this is the goal.
Nice and thanks for looking into this. >> If it is will the details be exported in the pkgconfig file and made >> available >> for users building applications in a consistent and easy to use way? > > Application build systems can query the tool using the RTEMS_MKIMAGE package > configuration varible, for example: > > pkg-config --variable=RTEMS_MKIMAGE > ${prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/${ARCH}-${BSP_NAME}.pc Nice. This is my preferred way of handling this. > If the BSP does not provide a tool, then the variable RTEMS_MKIMAGE is set to > "false". So the process has to be a single command? > It could help to export also EXEEXT and BOOT_IMAGE_EXTENSION in the package > configuration file. For RTEMS 6, we should have a look how our package > configuration support can be used to build applications on some commonly used > build systems. We are currently not able to produce build images. Yes we should. I also wonder if base addresses and other values that get used should be prov >> Is this output created along side the ELF file? > > Yes. +1 >> Does this approach handle all BSPs that need this? > > The BSP can use Python, so I would say yes. I am sorry I do not follow. >> Will you be converting all BSPs that need this type of support? > > I will add support for the BSPs using U-Boot. Could you please provide the high level view of how this is to be handled? I have not reviewed all the detail in the patches to understand this and even then I may get things wrong. Should we create a GSoC project to review and support the other BSPs? Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel