Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: [RaaA] Move SDL stuff to target tree
Re: [RaaA] Move SDL stuff to target tree
From: Dave Chapman <dave_at_dchapman.com>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 14:23:36 +0100
pouly amaury wrote:
> What do you think about it? Do you have any ideas how my proposal
> could be improved? Or do you have any questions? Please join the
> Sounds ok for me, I like the idea of the simulator being a real target.
Apologies for answering so late (too late in a way, as this patch was
committed yesterday), but the concept of the simulator being a real
target worries me. This is simply because the simulator *isn't* a real
target - it's a simulation of a real target.
My understanding of the purpose of RaaA is that it would use less and
less of the Rockbox firmware code as time went on. Development of the
sim should go in the opposite direction - using more and more Rockbox code.
I'm also not convinced that changing some #ifdef SIMULATOR lines to use
things like HAVE_SDL or HAVE_SDL_AUDIO makes the code for the simulator
better. IMO it makes it harder to see the places where the sim differs
from the target it's simulating (it still differs in the same way, it's
just obfuscated more).
As an example of the different purposes of the sim and RaaA, the SDL
button driver for RaaA should expose all buttons to the apps/ part of
Rockbox (especially if there is a full keyboard on the device). The SDL
button code for the sim should (although it doesn't currently) provide
simulation of the hardware buttons (and/or touchscreen and remote) on
the real device, including things like mechanical and electrical
limitations. Other buttons are used for events such as USB
Similarly, the LCD code for the sim presents the main LCD, the remote
LCD (if present on the target), a backdrop image, simulation of
backlights, simulation of charcell etc. For RaaA, none of those
complications are needed, but different complications may be - such as
possible window resizing, or run-time detection of LCD size (if we go
all the way with RaaA), or other things we haven't thought of yet.
Am I missing something obvious? Why is putting the sim code in target
tree a good idea?
I would have preferred to have seen a new SDL target being added to the
target tree, with none of the sim code in it - i.e. a shiny new SDL
target without the baggage of the sim, and leaving the sim free to be
developed and improved independently of RaaA (and in the opposite
Received on 2010-05-16