xiaoxiang781216 commented on PR #19536: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19536#issuecomment-5099265598
> > > Great, I tested xipfs locally and it seems to work the same way with PIC ELF. We have `mps3-an547:picostest `in our repository; can we use that as a test case for xipfs? Theoretically, compiling ostest with PIC ELF and then running it in xipfs without using NXflat would also work. @casaroli > > > > > > yes, @casaroli could you create a new config which enable xipfs and elf pic which should fix all issues you hit on nxflat? > > Thank you for your comments. > > We could add the ELF examples now, but honestly, xipfs does not bring any benefit to ELF PIC as the modules will need to be copied to RAM anyway. This would only be noise. > @anjiahao1 already add ELF XIP last year, but deploy only on ROMFS and LROFS (Lightweight Read-Optimized writable FS): https://github.com/open-vela/nuttx/tree/dev/fs/lrofs lrofs has the same idea as xipfs, but lrofs disk layout is binary compatible with ROMFS. > Spoiler alert: My next PR in this series will propose adding real FDPIC ELF (idea stolen from uclinux) that will provide real XIP ELF binaries. But since I am doing this in stages, the only thing that can actualy benefit from xipfs is NXFLAT. > Let wait you comparing the difference between FDPIC ELF and XIP ELF. > So once you merge it, the bomb will drop 💣 I hope you will like it. 😅 > > My suggestin is to try to get this merged as is -- after addressing the style comments -- it brings real benefits to NXFLAT and almost no difference to ELF PIC. And wait for the FDPIC ELF real XIP. OK, it's fine to merge this pr first, and work on XIP ELF and FDPIC ELF next. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
