You are right, and I didn’t expect you to take on the challenge. I was only making the point that browsing the Linux Kernel isn’t trivial and many of the online indexers have a long way to go to become useful. Anyway, thanks for playing ;-)
Regards, John > On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:05 PM, William Hermans <[email protected]> wrote: > > This isn't a pissing contest John. Go out and look into it on the VS front if > you want to. Otherwise don't worry about it. > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 3:55 PM, John Syne <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > When you have made VS index the Linux Kernel, then we can talk, but > speculating that it can be done is senseless. Here is a simple exercise to > prove my point. In two minutes, can you define the call sequence for say the > ti_am335x_adc probe function. In other words, how does the tiadc_probe > function get called? Start with the "module_platform_driver(tiadc_driver)” on > line 594. > > Regards, > John > > > > >> On Feb 21, 2016, at 2:41 PM, William Hermans <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Visual studio code is *not* Visual Studio. Visual Studio code is a text >> editor meant for web development, but *can* be used for other languages. >> Just as any other text editor can be used as such. >> >> Visual Studio on the other hand is a full blown IDE that has had features in >> the past that no other IDE's could rival, or even compare to. If Eclipse can >> index this stuff you're talking about. So can Visual Studio. As Visual >> Studio is light years ahead of Eclipse, no doubt. The problem with Visual >> Studio however, is that once you stray outside of cl.exe( in the context of >> C/C++ ), setup increasingly gets more difficult. But the compiler *can* be >> "changed out", and the debugging system can be made to work with gcc tools >> if you understand how. Honestly though, I personally do not find the effort >> worth it anymore. >> >> grep works just fine if you understand how to use it correctly. >> >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:42 PM, John Syne <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Not true. The Kernel supports so many architectures and most indexers cannot >> deal with this in an intelligent way. BTW, I use Visual Studio Code which >> support Typescript and runs on any platform. I have used cscope and several >> other indexers in the past, but there is no way to teach them about that you >> are using the ARM architecture. So when you look for the source for a >> function, you get dozens of references and that just slows things down. >> Using “git grep”, grep, ack, etc also produce multiple references and that >> is unacceptable. >> >> Regards, >> John >> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 11:35 PM, William Hermans <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Studio for many years. If for nothing else, "function explorer". Which >>> works fine with any source even if that source can not be compiled with VS >>> ;) >>> >>> By the way, sublime text 3 has this built in now too. >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:31 AM, William Hermans <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> This help me browse to any Linux Kernel function with a ctrl click. >>> >>> This is something Visual Studio has had / done for years, as in since . . >>> . well as long as I can remember. According to wikipedia, Visual Studio 6 >>> was released in 1998, and I know it was a feature in VS6 . . . at any rate >>> it is why I've used Visual Studio for many years. If for nothing else, >>> "function explorer". Which works fine with any source even if that source >>> can not be compiled with VS ;) >>> >>> Now days. find, and grep take the place of many tools. As well as many >>> other command line utilities . . . >>> >>> The only "compiler" that I'll put up with and is not gcc. Is actually not a >>> compiler but is TI's PRU Assembler. I'd also might tolerate clpru in the >>> future if I ever get around to reading the manual for it. BUt the PRU is a >>> special case, where I feel that community based open source tools are not >>> good enough, and probably never will be. >>> >>> So, when you use a tool chain based on gcc. As well as all the wonderful >>> Linux command line utilities. IDE "tools" are no longer necessary, and are >>> in fact less efficient. GUI's tend to get in the way, in this context. >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:11 AM, John Syne <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Yep, I like Sublime Text as well. It is clearly my favorite editor, but for >>> indexing the Linux Kernel, to include only code for the platform I’m using, >>> I use Eclipse. This help me browse to any Linux Kernel function with a ctrl >>> click. For Javascript, I use Webstorm and for embedded I use CCSV6.1. I use >>> whatever tools get the job done. >>> >>> Regards, >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 11:04 PM, William Hermans <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> That isn’t to say there are no bugs, but they do fix them pretty quickly. >>>> I have a pretty fast desktop with lots of memory so Eclipse performs quite >>>> well for me. >>>> >>>> i7 4710HQ with 16GB RAM, with 2GB dedicated 860M. So it's a laptop, and >>>> the only reason why I mention dedicated graphics. It is very, very fast. >>>> >>>> But again, that's not the point. heh. The point is, even something that is >>>> Visual Studio Code ( not the IDE but editor ) that is IDE like, can >>>> perform very much faster than any IDE. I've also stopped using VS( the IDE >>>> ) because it is also sluggish any more. and it's native code. >>>> >>>> As it is, I actually prefer writing much of my code in sublime text. As I >>>> like many of the features is has, including dark themes I can live with . >>>> . . VIM classic mode, snippets, customizable code complete, etc. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:54 PM, John Syne <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> On the contrary, I have personal connections with the CCSV6 developers for >>>> many years. I have helped them fix several bugs, especially related to >>>> debugging Linux kernel code back in CCSV4. After CCSV5, TI went a >>>> different directions and I could no longer use CCS for kernel debugging >>>> and went the Lauterbach route. However, for DSP development, there is >>>> nothing better period. For all the other embedded processors, TI do a >>>> pretty decent job with CCSV6. That isn’t to say there are no bugs, but >>>> they do fix them pretty quickly. I have a pretty fast desktop with lots of >>>> memory so Eclipse performs quite well for me. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 10:47 PM, William Hermans <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> BTW, I believe CCSV6 doesn’t need a license for code that is less than >>>>> 16K. >>>>> >>>>> I believe that any TI dev board is supported in CCSv6 for free so long as >>>>> the code is not used for commercial purposes. This also includes various >>>>> other dev boards, which I believe includes the beaglebone boards. >>>>> >>>>> However, that is not the point. I have a considerable amount of time >>>>> invested into using gcc based tool chains and prefer to stick with gcc. >>>>> period. I do not need all that instrumentation fluff to write code, and >>>>> in fact do not require, or even want an IDE of any sort most of the time. >>>>> Let alone a buggy, poor performing IDE written in java . . . >>>>> >>>>> Also do us both a favor. Don't try and tell me that CCS isn't buggy, and >>>>> isn't poor performing, You're not the only one whose been exposed to CCS >>>>> for years . . . >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:40 PM, John Syne <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> Ah, so I just use CCSV6 which has all the scripts that take the CortexM4s >>>>> out of reset and configures their memory map so that I can write code and >>>>> debug pretty quickly. Now if you don’t use CCSV6, you have to do all that >>>>> via the CortexA15s and that is going to be very difficult for >>>>> development. I’ve been doing this on the OMAP5 for several years, which >>>>> has many of the same features as AM5728. I also use CCSV6 for the DSPs, >>>>> which have the same issues. The TI DSP C compiler is highly optimized for >>>>> the C66 DSP which has many cores that operate in parallel. Also, the >>>>> instrumentation provided by CCSV6 makes it possible to do very accurate >>>>> measurements while running live code. This is especially important for >>>>> multithreaded applications. BTW, I believe CCSV6 doesn’t need a license >>>>> for code that is less than 16K. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 10:30 PM, William Hermans <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think more correctly said. They're similar to a Cortex M4 that sits on >>>>>> an Lx host processor interconnect. So you can not just use the eabi-none >>>>>> gcc port to make them work . . . >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:22 PM, William Hermans <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> The IPU’s are CortexM4 processors. >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> You're just now figuring that out ? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:20 PM, John Syne <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> The IPU’s are CortexM4 processors. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 9:53 PM, William Hermans <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do expect that TI will improve the documentation on their >>>>>>> implementation of remoteproc / rpmsg sometime in the future though. As >>>>>>> in the case of the X15, there are not only 4 on die PRU's, but there >>>>>>> are 4 IPU's( 2 usable for general purpose ), and two DSP's( on the dual >>>>>>> core A15 ). I've no idea what TI has compiler / assembler wise for >>>>>>> these DSP's but the IPU's from what I understand are fairly new( in the >>>>>>> context of general purpose ). So I'd assume this is where remoteproc / >>>>>>> rpmsg will make the most sense. the on die IPU's >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:39 PM, William Hermans <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> William, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I must be missing something, because I see remoteproc as a >>>>>>> communication and management mechanism for code on CPUs other than the >>>>>>> main processor. The actual code that you are running on those >>>>>>> subsidiary processors does not depend on the mechanism you use for >>>>>>> talking to it (other than the parts that do the talking, of course). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In particular, running ADC, I2C or GPIO should be the same, regardless >>>>>>> whether you use remoteproc or not---what changes is how you tell this >>>>>>> code what to do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does it make sense to you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What it is suppose to do hs always made sense to me. How exactlyit is >>>>>>> done, is another story. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> with uio_prussdrv, you have a driver module, which sets various things >>>>>>> up, loads the PRU binary, and then enables / runs the PRU(s). On the >>>>>>> PRU side, the code runs, communicates with various peripherals as >>>>>>> needed( usually one, if any ), and then the PRU code performs it's >>>>>>> function as specified in assembly. Sometimes, dumping data into ddr3( >>>>>>> as per the example ), and sometimes not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, the above is a fairly rough description, but how each aspect >>>>>>> communicates with the other is abundantly clear in code. Some have even >>>>>>> attempted to describe what happens, but if you ask me inadequately. No >>>>>>> matter though the code is pretty clear. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With remoteproc, the Documentation/*txt documentation is very minimal, >>>>>>> and does not describe the process in which it works very well. However, >>>>>>> the code is fairly clear as to how the ARM, and PRU sides communicate >>>>>>> with one another( rpmsg ). However, what is not clear, is how the PRU >>>>>>> code actually manipulates the physics on system hardware. Additionally, >>>>>>> to confuse matters even more, the assembler has changed to a compiler( >>>>>>> C - clpru ), and there is something like "map" files for hardware >>>>>>> configuration that do not seem to be very well documented. Just some >>>>>>> examples, that are not very clear as to how, or why these are even >>>>>>> needed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So here I am, attempting to learn a few things new to me. Documentation >>>>>>> is very poor, TI refuses to answer any questions in relation to PRUs on >>>>>>> their e2e forums(" go to beagleboard.org <http://beagleboard.org/> >>>>>>> google groups . . ." ). I spend several days learning about everything >>>>>>> PRU related, and immediately pick up the concept of uio_prussdrv. Still >>>>>>> having a hard time with the TI C compiler on the PRU side of things, >>>>>>> largely due to these mysterious configuration files. But no matter, the >>>>>>> TI Assembler is fairly straight forward, the PRU instruction set is a >>>>>>> minimal Cortex M3 set, and easy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, for context of my competence level. Not long ago I wrote a set >>>>>>> of processes / applications to read from the CANBUS in realtime, decode >>>>>>> the CANBUS data, and shuffle this decoded data out over a websocket. >>>>>>> This required me learning several aspect of Linux systems programming >>>>>>> from scratch. Including POSIX shared memory files, socketCAN, and >>>>>>> process spawning / management. All from scratch, since this was my >>>>>>> first major Linux application. All of this including reverse >>>>>>> engineering parts of the high level CANBUS protocol took me around a >>>>>>> month. The point here is, I have no problem picking up / understanding >>>>>>> technologies, and / or API's, libraries, and such that I've previously >>>>>>> have had no experience with. *So long* as there is at least a little >>>>>>> decent documentation on the subject, or I can talk to someone who does >>>>>>> understand things that may be confusing to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Additionally, I'm not saying exactly that remoteproc can't be made to >>>>>>> work, because obviously it can. What I am saying is that since the >>>>>>> concept is so poorly documented, is still in experimental phase, and >>>>>>> now I learn that it is slower than traditional prussdrv drivers / >>>>>>> methods. That it's just not worth my time to even attempt to get >>>>>>> working. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That and I *have* spent some time ( roughly a week ), *just because* >>>>>>> I'm the type that does not mind experimenting with new technology in >>>>>>> software. But only new technology that is not too argumentative. As my >>>>>>> time is far too valuable to me than to screw around with technology >>>>>>> that honestly makes very little sense to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also for what it is worth. remoteproc / rpmsg in my own mind is far >>>>>>> more useful in cases where a processor may have multiple application / >>>>>>> general purpose cores. In that one core can be made to run Linux, while >>>>>>> the others can be made to run bare metal - Simultaneously. Less useful >>>>>>> on the case of the PRUs since we already have a software layer that is >>>>>>> well documented, works very well, and quite honestly far superior to >>>>>>> remoteproc / rpmsg in this case. If nothing else. Speed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Przemek Klosowski >>>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:45 PM, William Hermans <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> > Is it really so much to ask for example code to demonstrate how to >>>>>>> > interact >>>>>>> > with the on die hardware ? Without having to download 1GB of pretty >>>>>>> > much >>>>>>> > useless library . . . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> William, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I must be missing something, because I see remoteproc as a >>>>>>> communication and management mechanism for code on CPUs other than the >>>>>>> main processor. The actual code that you are running on those >>>>>>> subsidiary processors does not depend on the mechanism you use for >>>>>>> talking to it (other than the parts that do the talking, of course). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In particular, running ADC, I2C or GPIO should be the same, regardless >>>>>>> whether you use remoteproc or not---what changes is how you tell this >>>>>>> code what to do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does it make sense to you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >>>>>>> <http://beagleboard.org/discuss> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "BeagleBoard" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>>>> an email to [email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:beagleboard%[email protected]>. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >>>>>>> <http://beagleboard.org/discuss> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "BeagleBoard" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>>>> an email to [email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >>>>>> <http://beagleboard.org/discuss> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "BeagleBoard" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>>> an email to [email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >>>>>> <http://beagleboard.org/discuss> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "BeagleBoard" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>>> an email to [email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >>>>> <http://beagleboard.org/discuss> >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>> "BeagleBoard" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>>> email to [email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >>>>> <http://beagleboard.org/discuss> >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>> "BeagleBoard" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>>> email to [email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >>>> <http://beagleboard.org/discuss> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>> "BeagleBoard" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>> email to [email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >>>> <http://beagleboard.org/discuss> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>> "BeagleBoard" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>> email to [email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >>> <http://beagleboard.org/discuss> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "BeagleBoard" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >>> <http://beagleboard.org/discuss> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "BeagleBoard" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >> >> >> -- >> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >> <http://beagleboard.org/discuss> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "BeagleBoard" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >> >> >> -- >> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >> <http://beagleboard.org/discuss> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "BeagleBoard" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. > > > -- > For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss > <http://beagleboard.org/discuss> > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "BeagleBoard" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. > > > -- > For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss > <http://beagleboard.org/discuss> > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "BeagleBoard" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
