mail archive of the barebox mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* barebox + picotcp
@ 2024-06-03 17:09 Sascha Hauer
  2024-06-07  0:47 ` Antony Pavlov
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Sascha Hauer @ 2024-06-03 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Antony Pavlov; +Cc: barebox

Hi Antony,

I am currently playing with your barebox picotcp integration in order to
get it into mainline. I am currently on your picotcp v2.1 branch and
noticed you had to disable TCP support. I wonder if v2.1 is the way
forward or if it's the v1.7 based branch instead. The v2.1 branch is
newer, but also hasn't seen any activity for multiple years now. One of
the main features of the v2.1 branch is that it introduces
PICO_SUPPORT_TICKLESS, from which I don't exactly know if we want/need
it, but what I do see is that the stack won't compile when this option
is enabled.

Do you have any thoughts what could be the way forward?

Regards
 Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: barebox + picotcp
  2024-06-03 17:09 barebox + picotcp Sascha Hauer
@ 2024-06-07  0:47 ` Antony Pavlov
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Antony Pavlov @ 2024-06-07  0:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sascha Hauer; +Cc: barebox

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:09:40 +0200
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:

Hi Sascha!

> Hi Antony,
> 
> I am currently playing with your barebox picotcp integration in order to
> get it into mainline. I am currently on your picotcp v2.1 branch and
> noticed you had to disable TCP support. I wonder if v2.1 is the way
> forward or if it's the v1.7 based branch instead. The v2.1 branch is
> newer, but also hasn't seen any activity for multiple years now. One of
> the main features of the v2.1 branch is that it introduces
> PICO_SUPPORT_TICKLESS, from which I don't exactly know if we want/need
> it, but what I do see is that the stack won't compile when this option
> is enabled.
> 
> Do you have any thoughts what could be the way forward?

I suppose that most beneficial picotcp feature is TCP support.
Working with picotcp v1.7 I have used tcp examples from
https://github.com/tass-belgium/picotcp-modules

It looks like that the tcp code does not work "as-is" after switching from
v1.7 to v2.1 so I have disabled it.

At the moment I have no good idea on picotcp integration next step.

This year I have faced with iPXE (https://ipxe.org/) as a user.
iPXE just works. It supports TCP and IPv6. It uses GPLv2.
May be iPXE would be a better choice?
However, I have not looked at the iPXE code yet. 

-- 
Best regards,
  Antony Pavlov



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2024-06-07  0:40 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-06-03 17:09 barebox + picotcp Sascha Hauer
2024-06-07  0:47 ` Antony Pavlov

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox