paparazzi-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Paparazzi-devel] new airframe configuration


From: Christophe De Wagter
Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] new airframe configuration
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:56:30 +0200

Dear Chris,

Thanks for raising this question as it is very helpful get feedback during this reorganization... 

The OLD airframe support will not disappear and possibilities will certainly not be reduced. The purpose is to "ease" "clarify" and "improve" but not to "limit" things...

In order to merge all the sub-projects (boards/control loops/filters/firmwares/modules) that were added to the paparazzi trunk the latest years a reorganization is needed so that "automated documentation" and "airframe-configuration-GUI's" for instance would become possible, but also so that lists of options which you can put in your airframe would become available to users with some explanation, and so that less duplicate files would exist and finally so that developers would loose less time in finding out how things work. This is only possible by moving, renaming, merging, relocating, and changing many files. The main reason this has not been done yet, is not because developers did not want to, but because they were unable to do so because it would break everyone's airframe over and over with every change. So the question was:

"How can we keep improving and growing paparazzi without constantly needing people to update their configuration"

Well a big part of the answer was created with the subsystems and modules. If files move or change or are merged, then the subsystem makefiles will be updated too. An airframe that uses it should not notice the change. Many add-on's and payload stuff is moving to modules, like for instance the cam.c. And even your own custom code (which we encourage to share!) can always still be added in the makefile section or... in your own subsystem (e.g. your own advanced control loops).

If you are hooked to makefiles, there is also to option of adding the directory names to your makefile. That will make it transparent to file relocations but not to all changes:

nav.c -->          $(FIXEDWING_SRCS)/nav.c             # firmware files
adc_hw.c -->    $(ARCH_SRCS)/adc_hw.c               # achitecture specific files

I hope this clarifies a few aspects and encourages people to support the new developments by for instance moving their own payload code to nice re-usable modules. If you should notice more problems please list them in the mailing list. Thanks,

Christophe





On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Chris <address@hidden> wrote:
Hi.
I would like to ask the developers not to abandon completely the old airframe support because the new one looks a little limited on first sight.
Maybe i am wrong but how do i add a source file like cam.c for example?
Chris



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]