hi Ian! I sent a proposal of porting FBSD for some board. Whether I will be accepted or not, I will contribute to at91 as I have my at91 board. I will send you an email, or you can tell me your irc contact on freenode or efnet, and I will send you my patches for testing :)
regards, Aleksander aleek@freenode, aleek@efnet On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Ian Lepore <free...@damnhippie.dyndns.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 20:19 +0200, Aleksander Dutkowski wrote: >> hello! >> >> after few weeks searching for interesting idea for me, I've decided to >> propose my own one. It is already mentioned on IdeasPage: >> - ARM cleanup >> >> Why I have chosen this one? I am very interested in embedded world. >> Now I am working on porting FBSD to at91sam9g45 - I will be much more >> motivated working on arm fbsd project than any other. >> >> Why should you let me do that project? While working on freebsd/arm >> I've noticed places that could be optimized, or separated, i.e. >> at91_samsize() should be declared for each board separately - now, >> this function has if-else and checks, which board is he running on. >> >> I would like to identify and fix that bugs, so the code will be more >> efficient and clear. Moreover, I think there should be a >> tutorial/framework for adding new boards or SoCs, so I will be >> simplier. I am currently reading the code in sys/arm/at91 and >> searching for improvements but I will be very pleased, if you send me >> your insights. >> >> The first question is - should I cleanup only at91 branch or more? I >> am quite familiar with at91 right now. >> The second - how to test the code? Some of boards could be tested in >> qemu, I could buy board with at91rm9200 for example, if I'm in. But >> maybe I will find here people with their own boards, they could help >> me testing? I havs sbc6045 board with at91sam9g45 SoC but it hasn't >> fbsd support yet (I'm working on it now :) ) >> >> I also thought about reducing kernel size for embedded, if arm cleanup >> won't fit. >> >> > > I'm curious whether you ever got a reply to this privately, since > nothing appeared on the list? I meant to reply and offer to do testing > of at91 changes on rm9200 hardware, but I was on vacation when you > posted originally, and I forgot to reply until just now. > > It's been my growing impression for about a year that the arm support in > FreeBSD has atrophied to the point where it can barely be said that it's > supported at all. Now I see this morning that marius@ has committed a > set of style cleanups to the at91 code (r234281), so maybe it's not > quite as dead as I feared. > > At Symmetricom we build a variety of products based on the rm9200, and > we're maintaining quite a set of diffs from stock FreeBSD. Some are bug > fixes, some are enhancements such as allowing the master clock frequency > to be changed during kernel init (instead of in the bootloader) and a > hints-based system that allows the atmelarm bus to become aware of new > child devices that aren't in the stock code and manage their resources. > It sure would be nice if some of those diffs could get rolled back in; > it would certainly make it easier for me to integrate things like > Marius' style cleanups back into our repo. > > Anyway, if ongoing changes are going to be happening to the at91 code, > I'm certainly interested in helping however I can. > > -- Ian > > _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
