Chris,
Thanks once again for clearing things up. Cheers, Ben From: Ring, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 November 2007 21:17 To: Ben White; [email protected] Subject: RE: Codec Engine - Single CPU video_copy app Recent releases of CE removed "app.x64P" as it's a confusing configuration. What you really want is "app_local.x64P", and look at local.cfg (not app.cfg) for reference. If you want to be further confused, read below the line. ;) ------------------------------------------ Mainly for _testing_ and internal debugging purposes, the CE dev team additionally built the examples where codecs were configured to be remote... AND the image included a Server. What this config generated is an environment where the stubs and skels (the RPC under the VISA calls) were introduced, and they both run on the same processor. I know that sounds strange, but what that enabled is the ability to step through (and debug!) the stubs/skels on a single processor, with one debugger, in whatever environment was most convenient(Linux GDB, CCS for 64P, etc). [ As many of you know, debugging in a dual-core environment isn't always easy. Yes, I guess I did say that outloud. ] For example, if we were trying to chase down a bug in a 'DSP-side' skeleton, the typical config would require us to test on dual-core hardware, an emulator, and some ARM/DSP setup. But, using this [strange and customer-confusing] config we could build an environment where we could debug this skeleton in a CCS simulator(!). Very powerful, but also very confusing in general. Again, we removed this from recent release... but the note might be interesting for stub/skel developers, so it's worth describing "below the line of confusion". Chris ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] com] On Behalf Of Ben White Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 5:23 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Codec Engine - Single CPU video_copy app Hi, Following the advice of a member a few months back I have gone down the route of making a DSP side code engine app so I can run my codec on a device that has no ARM side (in the future). So, I have based this on the video_copy\singlecpu example in the codec engine. My question is why are there two applications generated for this example, and what's the difference between them: In the package.bld file: for (var i = 0; i < Build.targets.length; i++) { var targ = Build.targets[i]; print("building for target " + targ.name + " ..."); addExe("app", targ); addExe("app", targ, "local"); //TODO addExe("app", targ, "remote"); } So it generates an app.x64P, and an app_local.x64P. They have slightly different .cfg files. Does anybody know what the difference between the 2 are? Thanks! Ben
_______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
