Re: [Paparazzi-devel] px4 autopilot and paparazzi

[Chris Gough]

>> Felix> So while I think ABI is a good idea to get rid of manually coded 
>> callbacks for when new sensor data is available for the filters, this 
>> doesn't really extend to a case with an RTOS where you have multiple 
>> processes running and need to "send" data across these boundaries.
> Gautier> As long as the interface is the same, it must be possible to have 
> several implementation of ABI, a basic synchronous one, and a more complex 
> asynchronous one compatible with RTOS. Do you think this would make sense ?

This is specifically what I was asking about (but I don't know if it makes 
sense either).

When I looked at ABI it seemed like a logical separation between event 
producers and consumers (callbacks) but I didn't understand how it was getting 
used. The fact that it isn't yet makes a lot more sense :)

I suppose the callbacks won't need to know if they are blocking (as now) or not 
(separate thread, etc). I had imagined there would be different possible 
'backends', a bare metal backend (built with drivers for specific sensors), a 
NuttX ORB client backend, etc.

Chris Gough