RE: [lwip-users] lwip error compilation edk 8.2i

[Matthew Yingling]

Xilinx' LwIP 1.00.a is 0.6.3 based, while 2.00.a is 0.7.2 based.  v1.00.a is
deprecated, and 2.00.a has undergone minor changes between EDK 7.1 and 9.1.
I'm still waiting on offical support of LwIP 1.2, though with some
modification to the drivers from the CVS and creation of a new LwIP third
party directory, I had LwIP 1.1.1 working in EDK 7.1.

I recommend you not use v1.00.a unless you really need to.

Matthew

----Original Message----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of
Jonathan Larmour
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 6:13 AM
To: Mailing list for lwIP users
Subject: Re: [lwip-users] lwip error compilation edk 8.2i

> Louis Filasky wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've been working on a project for a few week now and new to
>> lwip/fpga/edk. We have to send some data to a Virtex II Pro (XUP-V2P)
>> and we first used the EMAC IP core
>> provided along with EDK8.2i. It worked well even though we've heard
>> of lwip which is implementing DHCP which is required for our project.
>> For a couple of days, we have been trying to make it compile on EDK
>> but we were unsuccessful.
>>
>> We get the following error when we try to compile the lwip 1.0a (but
>> not with the lwip 2.0a):
>>
>> /*bash -c "cd src;make all >& logs"*/
>> *//*
>
> That's not an error, that's saying what command was trying to be run.
> If it was that command that failed, the answer depends on what the
> real error was, but I fancy the chances there is no makefile there.
> Makefiles are up to ports, and the Virtex port in that EDK is
> supplied by them, not the lwIP project. You'll have to take this
> issue up with them.
>
>> Also, I was wondering what is the different between lwip 2.0a and
>> 1.0a, is one a standalone raw api and the other built on some kind
>> of mini-os? Finally, one last question, is it possible to install
>> the last lwip
>> 1.2.0 on edk?
>
> Since lwip 2.0 does not yet exist, and I have no time machine handy
> at the moment, I have no idea what the differences are. An
> explanation is that whoever supplied that EDK is just making up
> version numbers, and those don't correspond to lwIP releases in the
> public project. Again, the best thing to do is take this up with them.
>
> Jifl