Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: elf loader

Re: elf loader

From: Amaury Pouly <amaury.pouly_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:26:20 +0200

I've been working for some time on elf loader for codecs and plugins.

> Currently it is in Proof-of-concept stage. Latest snapshot is
> available here: http://gerrit.rockbox.org/r/#/c/326/

Awesome job !

>
> - It removes the need for overlays. If plugin load fails in pluginbuf...
>
Always a good thing in my opinion.

> - It opens possibility to have multiple plugins loaded at the same time.
>
yeah \o/

> - It opens the possibility to unify codecbuf and pluginbuf and
> moreover share iram between codecs and plugins (well this is more
> theoretical one as codecs usually utilize pretty much iram)
>
+1, this could definitely lead to some simplification

> - It is the first step to move some functionality from the core to the
> loaded on demand plugins (core plugins?)
>
might be interesting in the future (usb drivers ? database ?)

> - Maybe even dynamicaly sized pluginbuf and codecbuf
>
> What is the cost:
> - size impact
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ah1OY3AHjewUdERVRkt4SHhPUjJiOXF0SjMwd2hzaVE
> Loader binsize is in rockbox.* and is actual binsize increase.
>
The increase is pretty small, it shouldn't be a problem in most targets.

> Plugins and codecs increased size is *on disk*. When loaded to the
> memory they have the same requirements as in current master.

- increased code load time, although it is fast enough that I don't
> see the difference
> - added complexity
>
That was expected, these days we have lots of space so the increase on disk
size is not a problem as long as the load time is fine. In my opinion the
real added complexity is the linker tricks to actual produce the files.

> Before I move forward I would like to hear Your opinion about all
> this. Do you see inclusion of such loader beneficial? What to do with
> SH?
>
I'm definitely in favor of its inclusion, after some more tests of course.
If it is not too hard, I would vote for keeping both systems with a
configure switch to select so that SH for example can be kept as it is.
Received on 2012-10-27


Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa