Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: [RaaA] Move SDL stuff to target tree
Re: [RaaA] Move SDL stuff to target tree
From: Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 00:10:14 +1000
On 16 May 2010 23:23, Dave Chapman <dave_at_dchapman.com> wrote:
> 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 insertion/removal.
> 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 direction).
So I pretty much have been thinking the same but couldnt work it
right, but bassically you need to remember than the simulator is only
a sim and really only for the UI! noone has ever made guarentees about
anything other than the display working like a real target.
Received on 2010-05-16