Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Some comments on the iFP port
Re: Some comments on the iFP port
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_rockbox.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:06:38 +0200 (CEST)
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Tomasz Malesinski wrote:
> 1. Adjusting what is in IRAM and what is not.
> I started implementing the idea discussed some time ago on IRC. I introduced
> macors like IBSS_ATTR_MPC_SAMPLE_BUF. The macros may be defined in
> config-<model>.h to be empty or not. The default values are defined in
> config.h or, as I think is better, in files like config-tremor.h, which are
> included by all files which may use a specific macro.
We've touched this topic before in discussions on how to best adjust Rockbox
to take advantage of IRAM best on targets with a varying amount of IRAM.
I think the best approach so far is basically this:
We define a set of named "services" or "things" that we can have in IRAM, and
then we let the config-*.h files define them into IRAM or DRAM.
Then systems with 128K IRAM can define more items and the 96K ones define
less, and those entirely without don't define anything to go into IRAM.
I haven't worked out the exact details, but I think this principle could be
simple but yet sufficient enough.
-- Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/Received on 2006-04-10