Lpc2000

ok... I will weigh in on this one.
I think you should pretty much stick with the simple "Hello World" 
thing. Making a one-size fits all project is a little bit too onerous 
for most of us out here. What we usually do is make a 
platform-specific one-size fits all for the family of products for our 
clients/customers/bosses.

This is what works for me.

I would...however, really welcome any new driver libraries...fully 
tested, and debugged, complete with documentation, (in the header 
files of course), with some example usage.

Ken Wada

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Steve Franks <stevefranks@i...> wrote:
>
> As usual, I'm gonna jump right out there and parade around my 
naivete
> for the spectators...
> 
> So,  I got me an old LPC2106 board, and a brand-spankin-new 2148
> board, and I've got examples from Keil, IAR, Embedded Artists,
> Aoleous, WinARM, etc.  Most of them I've gotten to work.  However, I
> have wound up with the world's ugliest stack of mistmatched lpcxyz.h
> files, .ld files, makefiles, and the whole nine yards.  Every single
> project does the same thing in terms of building, pretty much the 
same
> startup, etc.  Even on stuff made origonally for GCC, there's still
> about 99 ways to 'set up' a project (don't get me wrong, this is a
> 'good thing' in general), but I spend alot of time on cut & paste,
> move this register definion to that header, etc.
> 
> Now I finally get to my question.  Any support for creating a
> 'standard' project.  I suspect that's one of the newbie's biggest
> complaints.  And I've been around the block maybe once, and it's 
still
> making me crazy.  Especially given how much similarity there is, 
even
> with the commercial stuff, ala IAR & Keil in terms of headers, at
> least.  So I'm volunteering to make a distribuition that would 
include
> a peer-reviewed 'best-practices' type set for a raw project, 
including
> a standard set of headers for each lpc now in existence, and make &
> .ld.  Since IAR/Keil seems pretty header-friendly, I would even like
> to make it compatible with them as well (though I don't know if 
their
> project files that replace make & .ld are 'open').  Before everone
> tells me that there's too much customization that *has* to be done,
> let me say, I just want to make a 'standard' project that will work
> for as many as possible.  Anytime you want to do something fun, 
you're
> going to have to become an expert anyway.  But I haven't seen why I
> can make 90% of the examples out there play nice by making a 
standard
> project format to drop them into.  The PIC & AVR guys do it, I think
> we should too.  <wink><After all, if we steal from their ranks,
> philips will keep making more new lpc's for us to play with></wink>
> 
> So, is this a good idea, or no?  Nor do I know anything about a
> preferred location, etc.  I'll do the headers, if people give me 
data
> for the new stuff (i.e. 2103), and I have a makefile expert I can
> probably do some arm twisting on.  So mostly I'm just asking if it
> will be well recived, and if anyone will be willing to review it & 
try
> it on their code.
> 
> Steve
>