From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4570AE1C.8050008@domain.hid> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 23:35:08 +0100 From: Wolfgang Grandegger MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [ANNOUNCE] Xenomai Example Repository References: <457002EB.8080106@domain.hid> <45705C11.2010502@domain.hid> <457064F3.5050300@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <457064F3.5050300@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: xenomai-help , xenomai-core Jan Kiszka wrote: > Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> the new Xenomai example repository has been created. I don't want to >>> repeat here what is explained already on the related wiki page, please >>> have a look at >>> >>> http://www.xenomai.org/index.php/Examples >>> >>> Instead, let me sketch what could be done next: >>> >>> o Port existing examples, snippets, demos from ksrc/skins/* over, make >>> them compilable and runnable if required. >>> >>> o Identify what kind of examples are lacking. You, the user, is needed >>> here. What do *you* think is missing, what would be helpful to show? >>> >>> o Check what is needed to compile kernel-based examples over PPC 2.4. >>> Philippe indicated that some switches are likely missing (x86 is fine >>> already, other archs are 2.6-only). >> Some time ago I sent a patch for RTnet using the "kernel CFLAGS >> capturing" trick to get proper switches for 2.4: >> >> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=9493711&forum_id=24610 >> >> >> We could do the same trick here. > > Yeah, I had a look at this before. The point is that I would prefer to > keep things _simple_ and self-contained. This capturing requires some > helper Makefile and complex call nestings that likely only people with > advanced make and shell skills can understand and adopt to their projects. > > But maybe things are that complicated already, and this is just > different complexity. How do you compile simple out-of-tree modules > against 2.4 PPC kernels? Are there any standard flags? Or is it > different for each board or each compiler version or whatever? I just cut and paste the flags from a kernel module make. For PPC, there are plenty of flags, not board but some are processor depended, but I'm unable to tell which one are really required. For this reason I like the module capturing trick. Wolfgang.