Re: Do I always need an SDK in order to build drivers?

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

On Oct 23, 1:09 pm, minorguy <minor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Can I just build our driver once for each of the different
processor types x86, ARM, and MIPS and then give those out to everyone?

I think that the main benefit to using the various SDKs is that it
could let you know at compile time that your software is using
something that is not available on the target platform. If you
_really_ need this functionality, I would probably look into creating
a build system to build all of the targets to take the bite out of
that work.

In terms of whether it is possible, at least with Windows CE 4.2 it
was as long as anything you use / do in your driver is supported
across all the platforms, and each platform has a Catalog
Configuration that is compatible with what your driver / software
requires.

For example, I once had to write a driver against Windows CE 4.2 for a
platform that I had no SDK or BSP (binary or otherwise) for. To build
my driver I basically chose an ARM BSP from Platform Builder, created
an OSDesign and selected Catalog Items that corresponded to the device
that I was targeting. I then used Platform Builder to create a driver
for the newly created "fake" platform. I don't see why you couldn't
create an SDK based on that "fake" BSP and use that to develop against
though.

It
would seem that I can’t build unless I have at least one SDK for each type
(and I don’t have a one for MIPS yet). But can I be reasonably sure that if I
build an ARM version or our driver against one system’s SDK that it will work
on a different ARM system? This is assuming that the BSP includes the
components that I need, which in my case is USB host support. What's the
normal way for handling this?
My second question is, do you know of a way that I can set up some sort of
generic ARM system for testing? I have set up a CEPC for development and
testing, but that only requires a standard x86 PC. Is there some similar
hardware for ARM and MIPS that is recommended as a standard development
platform?

I would probably purchase ARM and MIPs systems that are simliar (if
not identical) to the systems that you will be targeting your software
for. I don't think that there is any "standard" or "recommended"
development platforms as that really just comes down to what the
requirements are for your product.

Hope this helps,
Brad.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Building ARM or MIPS Platform
    ... > CE.NET, you could use the standard SDK, it supports all the processors. ... > "Oliver Münchow" wrote in message ... >> need a SDK for a ARM and a MIPS processor. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsce.platbuilder)
  • Re: Forth on the Maximite
    ... on the famous MIPS architecture. ... Paul, I was wondering, too, because I like the ARM micro and I ... that leaves the PIC32 out entirely! ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: Forth on the Maximite
    ... No it is not a reason to change, in fact, I find it to be fairly ... architecture is not a good one so that newbies would be much better ... It is a MIPS micro. ... But still for me the ARM was the better architecture - I had a project ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: 50g questions, programming and OS
    ... At some point i was very enthusiastic about idea of entirely ARM based OS ... -or some other well known AND widely accepted compact platform ... -64MB RAM ... -64MB ROM ...
    (comp.sys.hp48)
  • Re: Forth on the Maximite
    ... is why they limite the varieties of CPUs they support. ... the market where the highest interest is. ... all the same stuff and have a larger market with the ARM processors. ... MIPS for a reason. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)