Welcome to the Rockbox Technical Forums!
Once you get around to selling or distributing the player, we think it would make sense if the player had a name that distinguished it from the Rockbox project as something supplied and created by others. An idea could be to choose a name like "The Little Player, running Rockbox." This would help the consumer know that it's not something provided by the Rockbox project itself, and that problems they have relating to the manufacturing and hardware should be taken to the provider and not us.As a project we don't want to seem to endorse any one player as "the" home brew player. The name "The Rockbox Player" could create confusion around whether the player belongs to Rockbox or is simply a player that runs Rockbox. We'd ask that you name it something that doesn't have the word "Rockbox" as part of the actual player's name, so that it's clear to people that it's a separate project that runs Rockbox as a primary operating system rather than as a product created by the Rockbox project. We'd like to keep Rockbox itself as a software project that avoids endorsing any specific player or players as "the" Rockbox player. Doing this could allow you to make it clear this is a separate project (possibly of wider interest to others since other firmwares could be run on it or developed for it) that is capable of running Rockbox well, rather than being an extension of Rockbox itself.-The Rockbox Steering Board
I remember that some old developer told about the "Orpheus" name, as it were one possibility for actual Rockbox. I will tell to another developers and we will choose a new name.
I think you should talk with us at our discussion group, all other developers are there:http://groups.google.com/group/rockboxplayer
Yes, it's ok. But don't forget JTAG port!!! Please, no micro-SD, just normal SD Card!! We have question to discuss here -- micro-SD don't have SPI bus, just SD Bus which mean we will need to pay royalties to use it :-( -- actual code is working for SD Card using SPI bus.
I want to ask some questions:- what is your motivation?- in what can you help on the project?- what you do professionally? do you have some projects yours that we can see?- will you share the schematic and board layout with a Open Source license?
Hi,I don't want to sound rude, but dkamin, I can't agree more with Casainho:Quote from: casainho on March 05, 2009, 12:45:58 PMI think you should talk with us at our discussion group, all other developers are there:http://groups.google.com/group/rockboxplayerYes, you should definitely talk to the rest of us in the group, because this is a shared effort not an every-man-for-himself development. So it'd be nice if you could follow the rules we have, which obviously include asking the rest of the people what do we think if you did this or that.Quote from: casainho on March 05, 2009, 12:45:58 PMYes, it's ok. But don't forget JTAG port!!! Please, no micro-SD, just normal SD Card!! We have question to discuss here -- micro-SD don't have SPI bus, just SD Bus which mean we will need to pay royalties to use it :-( -- actual code is working for SD Card using SPI bus.Again please ask, not just do whatever you think.Quote from: casainho on March 05, 2009, 12:45:58 PMI want to ask some questions:- what is your motivation?- in what can you help on the project?- what you do professionally? do you have some projects yours that we can see?- will you share the schematic and board layout with a Open Source license?Yes, you should have started introducing yourself and saying how you can help and asking for what might need doing.Don't take me wrong, dkamin, I'm happy there's another hardware guy around but I don't want you to take completely over the hardware development because there's more people who want to take part and who have been here for longer, like me, for example.Thanks,Alex
(...) As it is, we could be asking YOU to communicate more here about your software development work (patches on the tracker, and such). At the moment you've basically forked Rockbox and are working on it in your own space, rather than attempting to bring your software work back to the core project (we could probably have much of your in-progress code in SVN as long as you've been trying to follow the Rockbox coding styles, etc). (...)
And I put a patch one Rockbox tracker, however, I prefer now to focus on development and in the end (that is very near) I want to work on the patch for apply it again to the tracker.
Quote from: casainho on March 11, 2009, 06:16:31 PMAnd I put a patch one Rockbox tracker, however, I prefer now to focus on development and in the end (that is very near) I want to work on the patch for apply it again to the tracker.A single big patch that adds a complete new target is something that is almost impossible to review. Prepare to get asked breaking that monster-patch down into smaller pieces.The (somewhat) original is to have multiple smaller changes that even might be possible to get applied now. Which would mean less work for you (no need to maintain that piece against svn) and easier review of your patches, thus better chances to get it into svn soon. Of course, that would require to follow the Rockbox coding guidelines ...
Can registers get accessed through a structure pointer on our patch? Because we have a header file that have all registers like that, and it works. Can we use that file or will we really need to re-write it?
Quote from: casainho on March 12, 2009, 09:14:16 AMCan registers get accessed through a structure pointer on our patch? Because we have a header file that have all registers like that, and it works. Can we use that file or will we really need to re-write it?Simply put: it's not the way it's done in the rest of Rockbox. Having two completely different ways sounds like a bad idea to me. Also, I haven't seen this way of doing it much -- the usual way is by using register defines.As an example, do you access registers like register->PORTA on AVRs? No. So why should you do on the SAM? 'Besides, how do you suppose will this work if register addresses aren't consecutive?"We already have a header file" is not a reason, it's an excuse at best. IMO.
"We already have a header file" is not a reason, it's an excuse at best. IMO.
Page created in 0.098 seconds with 21 queries.