Re: tty.cdl

On 27.03.2011 21:39, Sergei Gavrikov wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011, Ilija Kocho wrote:
>
>> On 27.03.2011 19:11, Sergei Gavrikov wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011, Ilija Kocho wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27.03.2011 14:45, Sergei Gavrikov wrote:
>>>>> Hi Ilija,
>>>>>
>>>>> I get it (about your attempting to build the in-lines using CDL), but, I
>>>>> would keep things simpler, i.e. just would add two absent entries for
>>>>> TTY4, TTY5, TTYx in tty.c. Those are conditional definitions depend on
>>>>>
>>>> Adding two additional TTYs is an alternative indeed, it is simple and
>>>> straightforward to implement.
>>>>
>>>> My idea was to make system auto extensible and configurable. I have
>>>> fixed number of TTYs to 6, but as you suggest in your research below it
>>>> could be defined as a variable. HAL could provide an override too. Also
>>>> maintenance may be simpler since we avoid duplicated code?!
>>> Indeed. But, now I think that I gave bad suggest about extension via
>>> environment variable (How to document this "feature"? Who will know
>>> about? It looks like a trick) Ilija, so far, I take a timeout to think
>>> and test your substitutions and I will try to find compromise solution
>>> without the tricks and complex Tcl/CDL expressions.
>>>
>> Thanks,
>> In meantime I have a code that compiles and works. I will post to
>> Bugzilla so we can continue there.
>>
>> Ilija
> I was writing the below a few minutes ago
>
> Ilija, I tried something and I see that your request can be managed with
> CDL property 'make' and external Tcl script to generate some kind of
> io_serial_tty.inl on a fly like eCos 'heapgen.tcl' generates that
> heap.hxx, but I have a doubt about such a "complexity". By other hand
> the original tty and termios config files won't to have a mess with
> complex scripting as all details can be hidden in the external Tcl
> script. Eternal dilemma: Universality vs. Simplicity. I would prefer S.
> here (c & p), but, this is my view only.
>
> I think that you have to create bugzilla report is describing your issue
> (=request) without a solution and then we will discuss the ways to
> resolve the issue and I hope you will have more hands for that.
>
Sergei, I started this discussion in order to discuss this issue before
I drop any code. Your proposal sounds rational. I shall open a Bug and
reference this discussion.

Thanks
Ilija.

> Thank you,
> Sergei