On 27.03.2011 21:39, Sergei Gavrikov wrote: > On Sun, 27 Mar 2011, Ilija Kocho wrote: > >> On 27.03.2011 19:11, Sergei Gavrikov wrote: >>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011, Ilija Kocho wrote: >>> >>>> On 27.03.2011 14:45, Sergei Gavrikov wrote: >>>>> Hi Ilija, >>>>> >>>>> I get it (about your attempting to build the in-lines using CDL), but, I >>>>> would keep things simpler, i.e. just would add two absent entries for >>>>> TTY4, TTY5, TTYx in tty.c. Those are conditional definitions depend on >>>>> >>>> Adding two additional TTYs is an alternative indeed, it is simple and >>>> straightforward to implement. >>>> >>>> My idea was to make system auto extensible and configurable. I have >>>> fixed number of TTYs to 6, but as you suggest in your research below it >>>> could be defined as a variable. HAL could provide an override too. Also >>>> maintenance may be simpler since we avoid duplicated code?! >>> Indeed. But, now I think that I gave bad suggest about extension via >>> environment variable (How to document this "feature"? Who will know >>> about? It looks like a trick) Ilija, so far, I take a timeout to think >>> and test your substitutions and I will try to find compromise solution >>> without the tricks and complex Tcl/CDL expressions. >>> >> Thanks, >> In meantime I have a code that compiles and works. I will post to >> Bugzilla so we can continue there. >> >> Ilija > I was writing the below a few minutes ago > > Ilija, I tried something and I see that your request can be managed with > CDL property 'make' and external Tcl script to generate some kind of > io_serial_tty.inl on a fly like eCos 'heapgen.tcl' generates that > heap.hxx, but I have a doubt about such a "complexity". By other hand > the original tty and termios config files won't to have a mess with > complex scripting as all details can be hidden in the external Tcl > script. Eternal dilemma: Universality vs. Simplicity. I would prefer S. > here (c & p), but, this is my view only. > > I think that you have to create bugzilla report is describing your issue > (=request) without a solution and then we will discuss the ways to > resolve the issue and I hope you will have more hands for that. > Sergei, I started this discussion in order to discuss this issue before I drop any code. Your proposal sounds rational. I shall open a Bug and reference this discussion.
Thanks Ilija. > Thank you, > Sergei
