This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: SCC driver for 8xx PowerPC processors
- From: "Gary D. Thomas" <gary dot thomas at mind dot be>
- To: Paul Randall <prandall at delta-info dot com>
- Cc: eCos Discussion <ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: 07 Mar 2003 15:20:58 -0700
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] SCC driver for 8xx PowerPC processors
- References: <3E691940.F8E4FD67@delta-info.com>
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 15:12, Paul Randall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have an A&M Viper board which has a RS-232 serial port on SCC1, and a
> debug port on SMC1. I need to use the SCC1 port on the Viper but there
> is only a serial driver for SMC1 in eCos. I've ported the SCC1/2 eCos
> driver for the 8260 PowerPC to the 8xx PowerPC processor (It seemed
> easier than porting from the 8xx SMC1/2 driver) but I'm not sure the
> best way to integrate the driver into eCos.
>
> When I ported the driver, I created a new directory
> \packages\devs\serial\powerpc\quiccscc which had a ser_quicc_scc.cdl
> file and a quicc_scc_serial.c and .h files in the proper directory
> structure. I set up the QUICC SCC driver as a package separate from the
> QUICC SMC package. However, when I tried to make the configuration when
> both SMC1 and SCC1 were enabled, the cdl files for both added a
> CYGDAT_IO_SERIAL_DEVICE_HEADER define into the system.h file and I got
> compile warnings because of the duplicate define.
>
> Is this the best way to do this or should the SMC and SCC QUICC drivers
> be in the same file?
>
Not necessarily the same file (although I doubt that the differences
between SMC and SCC are so great that it requires two files!), but
certainly within the same package - which means the same directory
.../devs/serial/powerpc/quicc/
> Also, once I have tested the driver, how should I submit this to the
> eCos maintainers? As an .epk file? To the eCos patch list? I assume I
> need to fill out a copyright assignment and employer disclaimer? Should
> this still be sent to the Legal Department at Red Hat?
Since this would be an adjunct to an existing package, patches would
be the way to go. If these are substantial patches, then you will
have to do the copyright assignment dance as well.
If you want to pass your work to me, I can comment directly on how
to incorporate my suggestions with your code. I have a Viper here
to test it with.
--
.--------------------------------------------------------.
| Mind: Embedded Linux and eCos Development |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
| Gary Thomas email: gary dot thomas at mind dot be |
| Mind ( http://mind.be ) tel: +1 (970) 229-1963 |
| gpg: http://www.chez-thomas.org/gary/gpg_key.asc |
'--------------------------------------------------------'
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss