3.3.1. How to Contribute?¶
You can contribute to the RTEMS Project in various ways, for example:
- participation in mailing list discussions, helping other users
- documentation updates, clarifications, consolidation, fixes
- bug fixes, bug report consolidation
- new BSPs
- new device drivers
- new CPU (processor architecture) ports
- improvements in the existing code base (code size, code clarity, test coverage, performance optimizations)
- new features
- RTEMS Tools improvements
Most contributions will end up in patches of the RTEMS source code or documentation sources. The patch integration into the RTEMS repositories is done through a patch review process on the Developers Mailing List.
3.3.2. Preparing and Sending Patches¶
The RTEMS Project uses Git for version control. Git has a special command to
prepare patches intended for mailing lists:
Create logically connected patches as a patch series ideally accompanied by a
cover letter (
--cover-letter option). You can send patches via email
through a Git command:
3.3.3. Checklist for Patches¶
Check the following items before you send a patch to the Developers Mailing List:
- The author name of the patch is your full name.
- The author email of the patch is your valid email address.
- The licence conditions of the contributed content allow an integration into the RTEMS code base.
- If you are the copyright holder of the entire patch content, then please contribute it under the BSD-2-Clause license. For documentation use CC BY-SA 4.0.
- Make sure you have a pregnant subject which does not exceed 50 characters in one line. Use a “topic: The pregnant subject” style. A topic could be the main component of patch. Just have a look at existing commit messages.
- The patch has a good commit message. It should describe the reason for the change. It should list alternative approaches and why they were not chosen.
- The code changes honour the coding style. At least do your changes in the style of the surrounding code.
- The patch contains no spelling mistakes and grammar errors.
- The patch is easy to review. It changes one thing only and contains no unrelated changes. Format changes should be separated from functional changes.
- If the patch corresponds to a ticket, it should have “Close #X.” or “Update #X.” as the last line in the commit message to update status once it is committed to the repository.
- The patch builds. All RTEMS tests link with this patch.
- The patch does not introduce new compiler warnings.
- The patch does not introduce new test failures in existing tests.
3.3.4. Patch Review Process¶
Patches sent to the Developers Mailing List undergo a patch review process. Once a patch series is accepted for integration into the RTEMS code base it is committed by an RTEMS maintainer. The maintainers are usually quite busy with all sorts of stuff. If you do not get a response to a patch series submission to the mailing list after five work days, please send a reminder. It helps if you follow the Checklist for Patches. An easy to review patch series which meets the quality standards of the RTEMS Project will be more likely get integrated quickly.
3.3.5. Why Contribute?¶
If you are writing a major extension to RTEMS, such as a port to a new CPU family (processor architecture) or model, a new target board, a major rewrite of some existing component, or adding some missing functionality, please keep in mind the importance of keeping other developers informed. Part of being a good cooperating member of the RTEMS development team is the responsibility to consider what the other developers need in order to work effectively.
Nobody likes to do a lot of work and find it was duplicated effort. So when you work on a major new feature, you should tell Users Mailing List what you are working on, and give occasional reports of how far you have come and how confident you are that you will finish the job. This way, other developers (if they are paying attention) will be aware which projects would duplicate your effort, and can either join up with you, or at least avoid spending time on something that will be unnecessary because of your work. If, for whatever reason, you are not in a position to publicly discuss your work, please at least privately let an RTEMS maintainer know about it so they can look out for duplicated effort or possible collaborators.
If you are thinking of taking a contract to develop changes under a temporary delayed-release agreement, please negotiate the agreement so that you can give progress reports before the release date, even though you cannot release the code itself. Also please arrange so that, when the agreed-on date comes, you can release whatever part of the job you succeeded in doing, even if you have not succeeded in finishing it. Someone else may be able to finish the job.
Many people have done RTEMS ports or BSPs on their own, to a wide variety of processors, without much communication with the RTEMS development team. However, much of this work has been lost over time, or have proven very hard to integrate. So, what we are asking is that, to the maximum extent possible, you communicate with us as early on and as much as possible.
3.3.6. Common Questions and Answers¶
Here are some questions RTEMS porters may have with our answers to them. While the focus here is on new ports and BSPs, we believe that the issues are similar for other RTEMS development efforts including student efforts to implement new algorithmic optimizations.
Our engineers understand our target environment better than anyone else, and we have a tight schedule. Why should we work with the RTEMS developers, when we can get the code out faster by whacking it out on our own?
You understand your target environment better than anyone else. However, the RTEMS developers understand RTEMS better than anyone else; furthermore, the RTEMS developers tend to have a wide breadth of experience across a large number of processors, boards, peripherals, and application domains. It has been our experience that few problems encountered in embedded systems development are unique to a particular processor or application. The vast majority of the time an issue that arises in one project has also shown up in other projects.
The intimate knowledge of RTEMS internals as well as a wide breadth of embedded systems knowledge means that there is a good chance that at least one RTEMS developer has already addressed issues you are likely to face when doing your port, BSP, or application. The developers can help guide you towards a workable long term solution, possibly saving you significant time in your development cycle.
If getting the sources into the official RTEMS distributions is one of your goals, then engaging other RTEMS developers early will also likely shorten your development time. By interacting as early as possible you are more likely to write code which can be easily accepted into the official sources when you are finished. If you wait until you think you are done to begin interacting with the RTEMS team, you might find that you did some things wrong and you may have to rewrite parts of your RTEMS port, which is a waste of your valuable time.
Why should we care if our port is integrated into the official RTEMS sources? We can distribute it ourselves to whoever is interested.
Yes, the RTEMS licenses allows you to do that. But by doing so, you end up having to maintain that code yourself; this can be a significant effort over time as the RTEMS sources change rapidly.
You also lose the advantage of wider exposure by including your port in the official RTEMS sources maintained by the RTEMS Project. The wider exposure in the RTEMS developer and tester community will help keep your work up to date with the current sources. You may even find that volunteers will run the ever-growing test suite on your port and fix problems during the development cycle – sometimes without your intervention.
It has been our experience that integrated ports tend to ultimately be of better quality and stay up to date from release to release.
Why should we communicate up front? We are happy to let the RTEMS developers integrate our stuff later.
See above. It will save work for you over both the short and the long term, and it is the right thing to do.
Aspects of my target environment that my application exploits are still under NDA.
Nevertheless, if the target hardware is built of any commercial parts that are generally available including, but not limited to, the CPU or peripherals, then that portion of your work is still of general use. Similarly, if you have written software that adheres to existing API or interface standards, then that portion is also of general use. Our experience is that most embedded applications do utilize a custom mix of hardware and application, but they are built upon layers of hardware and software components that are in no way unique to the project.
If you are porting to an unreleased CPU family or model, then just announcing it is important because other RTEMS users may be planning to use it and some of them may already be trying to port RTEMS on their own. Your customers might be happier to know that your port will eventually be available. Also, there is no requirement that RTEMS include all features or ports at any particular time, so you are encouraged to submit discrete pieces of functionality in stages.
Assume that your processor has some new functionality or peripherals. However that functionality is still covered by NDA, but the basic core architecture is not. It is still to your advantage to go ahead and work with the developers early to provide a “base port” for the CPU family. That base port would only use the publicly available specifications until such time as the NDA is lifted. Once the NDA is lifted you can work with the developers to provide the code necessary to take advantage of the new functionality.
Ultimately, cooperating with the free software community as early as possible helps you by decreasing your development cycle, decreasing your long term maintenance costs and may help raise interest in your processor by having a free compiler implementation available to anyone who wants to take a look.