RFC: RTOS for Calypso
laforge at gnumonks.org
Mon May 16 05:19:13 UTC 2011
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 10:17:28PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Nuttx is BSD, osmocom code is GPL. So, shall osmocom code for Nuttx
> be relicensed and only the application-repro contain GPL-code
I think all the calypso driver code to get the Soc supported in NuttX
(spi/lcd/i2c/uart/flash/sercomm/...) should eventually go Nuttx upstream
and I have no problem re-licensing that under the BSD-style license.
> (probably no problem for drivers, but what about l1-code)? Or are we
> keeping GPL and keep in sync with upstream on our own (merging could
> get quite ugly if that diverges too much)?
I think the L1 would be two parts: the synchronous part in the FIQ,
and one 'userspace' task (might have multiple threads) for everything
Both should be fine as GPL, and I don't expect major headaches with
keeping it in sync. The FIQ handler is completely independent from the
RTOS and pre-empts it anywhere. If Nuttx right now is blocking FIQs, we
should propose to change that in upstream, but still keep the L1S in our
- Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
More information about the baseband-devel