Open-CMSIS-Pack Technical Meeting 2022-02-22
Feb 22, 2022
Updates from past week
DJ created issues:
Command to delete intermediate files #143
Command to list boards #141
Tool config data #142
Just to share - not high priority tasks.
DB: Need to keep separation of concerns for tools
RK: Need to bring the tools together - at the moment they’re a bit separated.
FR: csolution anc cpakcget should not be merged, but csolution should call cpackget service for listing the packs
RK: Did mark a couple of issues as “discussion done” as feel they are concluded. Please take a look whoever raised them - feel we should close.
FR: #86 - fine with me.
JK: Will be pragmatic initially - can revisit. Action is for people to look at the issues they raised.
I guess csolution can handle several components from several packs with several generators ?
I guess the next step for csolution is to have the dependencies solver ?
this is also a good idea for debugging
at least now we know the context when the generator is invoked
LM: yaml file is input to the generator but called from component rather than project.
JK: Somewhere it needs to be clear the component that’s triggering the generator.
FR: Unique generator IDs across packs is very interesting.
RK: How is the workflow with NXP today? Is NXP exploring the generator feature as well?
DJ: Not yet. Have config tools that are able to deliver generated code. Tools are designed for Eclipse environment.
FR: Handled dependencies manually. Are you planning to include a dependencies resolver?
DB: It could be a flag in the convert command or to write it back into the yaml file. Think these are the two options.
RK: Get the point that there’s work to do here.
DB: Still in some internal reviews. Would like to align all the list commands with list generators. Would like to work over a project and over a solution with a given context. Check releases page on Thursday.
CMSIS Project Manager - priorititized ToDo list
FR: the problem I have with phase is when it is not sequential but concurrent : secure vs non-secure run in // but it is 2 zones with 2 sets of resources
FR: #87 - express preference for JSON
RK: Is yaml the right choice? Could we support both formats?
ED: Yes we can. More an issue of composing the data.
RK: Will make a proposal for the RZone data. There are probably conversion tools that are fairly simple.