Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Volunteering for porting Rockbox
Re: Volunteering for porting Rockbox
From: sophana <jobarjo78_at_yahoo.fr>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:49:02 +0200
Björn Stenberg wrote:
>>One of the ideas I had in the past weeks is to make
>>a proof-of-concept by porting Rockbox to the PC.
>This is a good idea. Porting Rockbox properly means more than just writing code that runs on a different target. We need to restructure a lot of things so the codebase can handle multiple platforms without splitting into separate branches.
>Those of you who want to start looking into these things should try to be available on IRC as much as you can, to syncronise the effort and make sure we agree on the design issues.
When you say 'restructure a lot of things' did you mean restructure
When I have a look into rockbox architecture, it is so much related to
the archos hardware that I wonder what is the percentage of code that
can be shared between 2 or more architectures...
A good example is the display: between the players and recorders, there
are already 2 branches, and the common code does contain lots of 'IFDEF'.
A common architecture is not so easy to find... Or should I say the most
standard architecture is ... posix, so porting rockbox into linux (posix
complient) would help a lot, and you could then run rockbox on ipods.
I know linux is not the smallest kernel ever seen. But there should be
other open source micro kernels with pseudo standard API that rockbox
could rely on.
One other big difference between hardware platforms is the memory size:
if linux could be ported to ipods, this probably means that ipods have
suffucient memory to host linux. Bringing an open source kernel into the
archos should be the first stage in improving rockbox portability.
seems that avos have made a lot of work. they can play mp3 without
rockbox. it seems that this platform is the most reverse engineered.
Received on 2004-08-26