Matias N. made some progress before; Unified device interface, callback based initialization and devicetree (DTS) · Issue #3031 · apache/incubator-nuttx (github.com) <https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/issues/3031> [RFC] Using devicetree (DTS) to improve board support · Issue #1020 · apache/incubator-nuttx (github.com) <https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/issues/1020>
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:07 PM Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 8:31 AM Tomasz CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 18:36 Gregory Nutt wrote: > > > > > Device tree is another technology that has been advocated for NuttX > with > > > a few strong advocates but with no clear mandate from the community. > > > > > > > Linux and Zephyr RTOS uses DTS to desrbibe hardware: cpu, memory, > > peripherals, soc, boards, etc. > > > > That would give some compatibility and easier portabity to existing > > hardware! :-) > > > > I did some definitions of custom boards and hardware already in Zephyr. > It > > is not really well documented along west project structure seems still > > under development (i.e. using global zephyr repo vs using per project > > different version local zephyr repo is possible not for that long). There > > are many examples but different ones offers different approach and there > is > > no clear standard with examples (i.e. standard should provide several > full > > working examples not just code snippets). Clear but extensible project > > structure is also important (but I am not yet there in NuttX). > > > > Anyways DTS would make portabity much easier also re-using existing > > hardware definitions would make migration to NuttX more attractive :-) > > > If NuttX used DTS, would that increase the size of the RTOS binary > and/or slow down bootup? > > Is it possible to make DTS a build-time input instead of runtime > processing? > > Cheers, > Nathan >
