Adding sources to BSP makefile - VxWorks

This is a discussion on Adding sources to BSP makefile - VxWorks ; Hi All, I need to add my application specific source files in the 'BSP makefile' and build the VxWorks image. I have the 'C' files scattered in different directories, and similarly the headerfiles. How can this be achieved ? Thanks ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Adding sources to BSP makefile

  1. Adding sources to BSP makefile

    Hi All,
    I need to add my application specific source files in the 'BSP
    makefile' and build the VxWorks image. I have the 'C' files scattered
    in different directories, and similarly the headerfiles. How can this
    be achieved ?

    Thanks in Advance,
    Keshav


  2. Re: Adding sources to BSP makefile

    keshavreddyg@indiatimes.com wrote:

    >Hi All,
    >I need to add my application specific source files in the 'BSP
    >makefile' and build the VxWorks image. I have the 'C' files scattered
    >in different directories, and similarly the headerfiles. How can this
    >be achieved ?


    It is extremely unusual to to include application code in one's BSP so
    I have to wonder why you want to do this and suspect that there may be
    a better way to get to shere you need to go.

    >Thanks in Advance,


    --
    ================================================== ======================
    Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
    | two, one and one make one."
    mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain

  3. Re: Adding sources to BSP makefile

    > keshavreddyg@indiatimes.com wrote:

    >> Hi All, I need to add my application specific source files in the
    >> 'BSP makefile' and build the VxWorks image. I have the 'C' files
    >> scattered in different directories, and similarly the
    >> headerfiles. How can this be achieved ?


    On 25 Jan 2006, mrkesti@nospam.net wrote:

    > It is extremely unusual to to include application code in one's BSP
    > so I have to wonder why you want to do this and suspect that there
    > may be a better way to get to shere you need to go.


    It is not that unusual if you wish to create a ROM image. However, it
    is usually better to create a compressed ROM. Here are the reasons,

    1) Flash costs more / MB than SDRAM.
    2) Flash runs slower than SDRAM.
    3) Flash doesn't let you set breakpoints.

    The reason that you may want to burn vxWorks and app in Flash/ROM
    would be that you want to boot quickly. Reason one will not apply if
    you have a masked ROM.

    The OP didn't state reasons. Also, the OP didn't state that they had
    to /wanted to use projects or Makefiles. You can make the application
    as a downloadable object. Then add this object as an extra object
    module to the vxWorks project. Then set USR_APP_INIT to your function
    that kicks everything off.

    The process is similar for a compressed ROM image. I think this
    should be in the documentation for those capable of reading.

    hth,
    Bill Pringlemeir.

    --
    Little girls, like butterflies need no excuses. - Robert Heinlein

    vxWorks FAQ, "http://www.xs4all.nl/~borkhuis/vxworks/vxworks.html"

  4. Re: Adding sources to BSP makefile

    Bill Pringlemeir wrote:

    >> keshavreddyg@indiatimes.com wrote:

    >
    >>> Hi All, I need to add my application specific source files in the
    >>> 'BSP makefile' and build the VxWorks image. I have the 'C' files
    >>> scattered in different directories, and similarly the
    >>> headerfiles. How can this be achieved ?

    >
    >On 25 Jan 2006, mrkesti@nospam.net wrote:
    >
    >> It is extremely unusual to to include application code in one's BSP
    >> so I have to wonder why you want to do this and suspect that there
    >> may be a better way to get to shere you need to go.

    >
    >It is not that unusual if you wish to create a ROM image. However, it
    >is usually better to create a compressed ROM. Here are the reasons,
    >
    > 1) Flash costs more / MB than SDRAM.
    > 2) Flash runs slower than SDRAM.
    > 3) Flash doesn't let you set breakpoints.
    >
    >The reason that you may want to burn vxWorks and app in Flash/ROM
    >would be that you want to boot quickly. Reason one will not apply if
    >you have a masked ROM.


    I agree with all of the above except that these are not good reasons to
    include application files in one's BSP. The reason for this is that
    doing so makes the BSP application specific rather than board specific.
    If one needed, for example, to deploy a second application that runs
    on the same board, then one would have to create a second BSP for that
    second application.

    It is far better to create a ROMable application by including one's
    application source or object files in a bootable VxWorks image project
    and building that project using an appropriate build rule. This is,
    I think, what you are describing below.

    >The OP didn't state reasons. Also, the OP didn't state that they had
    >to /wanted to use projects or Makefiles. You can make the application
    >as a downloadable object. Then add this object as an extra object
    >module to the vxWorks project. Then set USR_APP_INIT to your function
    >that kicks everything off.
    >
    >The process is similar for a compressed ROM image. I think this
    >should be in the documentation for those capable of reading.
    >
    >hth,
    >Bill Pringlemeir.


    --
    ================================================== ======================
    Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
    | two, one and one make one."
    mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain

  5. Re: Adding sources to BSP makefile

    Hi All,
    I thank you for your answers.

    I agree that the BSP becomes application specific. But I want to remove
    multiple make files usage for simplicity and keep only one makefile
    which builds the VxWorks bootable image and the application together at
    one go. I would not like to have dependency on the tornado GUI. This
    was the reason behind for posting this question.

    Thanks,
    Keshav


  6. Re: Adding sources to BSP makefile

    keshavreddyg@indiatimes.com wrote:

    >Hi All,
    >I thank you for your answers.
    >
    >I agree that the BSP becomes application specific. But I want to remove
    >multiple make files usage for simplicity and keep only one makefile
    >which builds the VxWorks bootable image and the application together at
    >one go. I would not like to have dependency on the tornado GUI. This
    >was the reason behind for posting this question.


    Then you may as well solve your path problems by moving your application
    source files to the BSP directory.

    >Thanks,
    >Keshav


    --
    ================================================== ======================
    Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
    | two, one and one make one."
    mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain

  7. Re: Adding sources to BSP makefile

    On 27 Jan 2006, keshavreddyg@indiatimes.com wrote:

    > I agree that the BSP becomes application specific. But I want to
    > remove multiple make files usage for simplicity and keep only one
    > makefile which builds the VxWorks bootable image and the application
    > together at one go. I would not like to have dependency on the
    > tornado GUI. This was the reason behind for posting this question.


    For ease of building, you can call one Makefile from another. I can
    understand making the build process simple. However, sticking all
    files and build rules in one Makefile is not modular/maintainable.

    There are also TCL files in the FAQ and/or on WindSurf that allow you
    to convert a project to a Makefile. This allows an automated build
    while still allowing (some) developers to use the GUI; For some
    reasons, people like to use the GUI. It does have the benefit of
    having an edit (a really bad one), the project management and a
    debugger all in one place.

    I never committed Makefiles for applications to source control. I
    just recreated the Makefile from the project files. You can use
    symlinks or drive substitution to work around the project files
    absolute paths.

    I preferred Makefile as they are more flexible for writing rules (lex,
    yacc, custom tools for data driven code/algorithms). So in the
    kernel/BSP, you may wish to only use Makefiles.

    I mention this as it is rarely nice/productive to force your own
    preferences on other developers. However, maybe you are doing this
    all by yourself...

    In any case, I would consider calling one Makefile from another.

    fwiw,
    Bill Pringlemeir.

    --
    Paradigm is a word too often used by those who would like to have a
    new idea but cannot think of one. - Mervyn King

    vxWorks FAQ, "http://www.xs4all.nl/~borkhuis/vxworks/vxworks.html"

+ Reply to Thread