> "Oliver" == oliver munz @ s p e a g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Oliver> In this case templates like:
Oliver> target at91sam7sek {
Oliver> alias { "Atmel AT91SAM7SEK evaluation board" at91_at91sam7sek }
Oliver> packages { CYGPKG_HAL_ARM
Oliver>C
Bart Veer wrote:
>
> The hardware attribute is an extremely poor substitute for what I had
> planned in the original design of the configuration system, but in my
> opinion right now is not the right time to have that discussion.
Yes I wasn't proposing changing it now. Just mentioning while it wa
> "Jifl" == Jonathan Larmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jifl> Bart Veer wrote:
>>> "Oliver" == oliver munz @ s p e a g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Oliver> mark CYGPKG_IO_SPI as HARDWARE?
Oliver> I think Generic SPI or I2C and so one should be loadable
Oliver> w
Bart Veer wrote:
>> "Oliver" == oliver munz @ s p e a g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Oliver> mark CYGPKG_IO_SPI as HARDWARE?
> Oliver> I think Generic SPI or I2C and so one should be loadable
> Oliver> whitout an template. Can we change this?
>
> The problem here is that other
I also think that our views on the issue are affected by which
configuration editor we use. If I'm not mistaken, when using the
command-line editor you can just "add" the drivers into your
configuration, but if you use the GUI configtool, you can't add the
packages and must edit "ecos.db" to ge
> "Gary" == Gary Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gary> Oliver Munz @ SNR wrote:
>> Yes, if it's the case, that the drivers only are linked in the
>> application, if they are realy needed, then there is no reason to don't
>> include the CYGPKG_IO_*'s and if the CYGPKG_IO_*'s
> "tgabor84" == =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor T=F6r=F6k?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> writes:
tgabor84> I think it is the same issue CYGPKG_IO_USB and
tgabor84> CYGPKG_IO_USB_SLAVE, which are also marked as hadware
tgabor84> packages and not included in the templates.
CYGPKG_IO_USB and CY
> "Oliver" == oliver munz @ s p e a g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Oliver> In this case templates like:
Oliver> target at91sam7sek {
Oliver> alias { "Atmel AT91SAM7SEK evaluation board" at91_at91sam7sek }
Oliver> packages { CYGPKG_HAL_ARM
Oliver>C
Oliver Munz @ SNR wrote:
> Yes, if it's the case, that the drivers only are linked in the
> application, if they are realy needed, then there is no reason to don't
> include the CYGPKG_IO_*'s and if the CYGPKG_IO_*'s do control, if the
> drivers are linked to the applications, then they shouldn't b
Yes, if it's the case, that the drivers only are linked in the
application, if they are realy needed, then there is no reason to don't
include the CYGPKG_IO_*'s and if the CYGPKG_IO_*'s do control, if the
drivers are linked to the applications, then they shouldn't be marked as
"hardware"...
B
I think it is the same issue CYGPKG_IO_USB and CYGPKG_IO_USB_SLAVE,
which are also marked as hadware packages and not included in the
templates.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:20 PM, oliver munz @ s p e a g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In this case templates like:
>
> target at91sam7sek {
> alias { "
In this case templates like:
target at91sam7sek {
alias { "Atmel AT91SAM7SEK evaluation board" at91_at91sam7sek }
packages { CYGPKG_HAL_ARM
CYGPKG_HAL_ARM_AT91
CYGPKG_HAL_ARM_AT91SAM7
CYGPKG_HAL_ARM_AT91SAM7SEK
CYGPKG_I
> "Oliver" == oliver munz @ s p e a g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Oliver> mark CYGPKG_IO_SPI as HARDWARE?
Oliver> I think Generic SPI or I2C and so one should be loadable
Oliver> whitout an template. Can we change this?
The problem here is that other drivers such as the wallclock
mark CYGPKG_IO_SPI as HARDWARE?
I think Generic SPI or I2C and so one should be loadable whitout an
template. Can we change this?
Thanks
14 matches
Mail list logo
