Re: GSoC 2020: Final Report (Beagle BSP: Add FDT based initialization)

[Christian Mauderer]

On 29/08/2020 05:57, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:19 AM Gedare Bloom  > wrote:
> 
> Are "Links to commits" 1-4 all the code you (are claiming you) wrote?
> I just want to make sure. It looks fine to me.
> 
> Yes, all the code in the commits is written by me.

I think maybe "Links to branches" would be a better title. It is not a
single commit each but a few commits. Alternative would be to add links
to each commit.

It has been quite a bit of back and forth during this GSoC project so I
think the result is quite OK.

Best regards

Christian

> 
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 12:07 PM Niteesh G. S.  > wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have prepared my final report for my project. You can have a
> look at it
> > here https://gs-niteesh.github.io/finalreport/. Please kindly
> review the report.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Niteesh.
> 
> 
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> 
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GSoC 2020: Final Report (Beagle BSP: Add FDT based initialization)

[Niteesh G. S.]

On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:02 PM Christian Mauderer 
wrote:

> On 29/08/2020 05:57, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:19 AM Gedare Bloom  > > wrote:
> >
> > Are "Links to commits" 1-4 all the code you (are claiming you) wrote?
> > I just want to make sure. It looks fine to me.
> >
> > Yes, all the code in the commits is written by me.
>
> I think maybe "Links to branches" would be a better title. It is not a
> single commit each but a few commits. Alternative would be to add links
> to each commit.
>

I have changed the title to "Links to branches". Should I also add links
to the commits that were made in each phase at the end of the summary of
each phase?


>


> It has been quite a bit of back and forth during this GSoC project so I
> think the result is quite OK.
>
> Best regards
>
> Christian
>
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 12:07 PM Niteesh G. S.  > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I have prepared my final report for my project. You can have a
> > look at it
> > > here https://gs-niteesh.github.io/finalreport/. Please kindly
> > review the report.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Niteesh.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > devel mailing list
> > devel@rtems.org
> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GSoC 2020: Final Report (Beagle BSP: Add FDT based initialization)

[Christian Mauderer]

Hello Niteesh

On 29/08/2020 11:22, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:02 PM Christian Mauderer  > wrote:
> 
> On 29/08/2020 05:57, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:19 AM Gedare Bloom  
> > >> wrote:
> >
> >     Are "Links to commits" 1-4 all the code you (are claiming you)
> wrote?
> >     I just want to make sure. It looks fine to me.
> >
> > Yes, all the code in the commits is written by me.
> 
> I think maybe "Links to branches" would be a better title. It is not a
> single commit each but a few commits. Alternative would be to add links
> to each commit.
> 
> 
> I have changed the title to "Links to branches". Should I also add links
> to the commits that were made in each phase at the end of the summary of
> each phase?
>  

If you want, you can do that.

The main point of that change was to highlight that it's not 4 commits
but a bit more.

> 
>  
> 
> 
> It has been quite a bit of back and forth during this GSoC project so I
> think the result is quite OK.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Christian
> 
> >
> >     On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 12:07 PM Niteesh G. S.
> mailto:niteesh...@gmail.com>
> >     >>
> wrote:
> >     >
> >     > Hello,
> >     >
> >     > I have prepared my final report for my project. You can have a
> >     look at it
> >     > here https://gs-niteesh.github.io/finalreport/. Please kindly
> >     review the report.
> >     >
> >     > Thanks,
> >     > Niteesh.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > devel mailing list
> > devel@rtems.org 
> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >
> 
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[PATCH] Add Strong APA 2nd test

[Richi Dubey]

---
 testsuites/smptests/smpstrongapa01/init.c | 72 ++-
 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

diff --git a/testsuites/smptests/smpstrongapa01/init.c 
b/testsuites/smptests/smpstrongapa01/init.c
index bf8bc05231..0daa768b48 100644
--- a/testsuites/smptests/smpstrongapa01/init.c
+++ b/testsuites/smptests/smpstrongapa01/init.c
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 /*
+ * Copyright (c) 2020 Richi Dubey ( richidu...@gmail.com )
  * Copyright (c) 2016, 2017 embedded brains GmbH.  All rights reserved.
  *
  *  embedded brains GmbH
@@ -16,23 +17,28 @@
 #include "config.h"
 #endif
 
-#include "tmacros.h"
+#include 
 
 #include 
 
 const char rtems_test_name[] = "SMPSTRONGAPA 1";
 
-#define CPU_COUNT 4
+#define CPU_COUNT 2
 
-#define TASK_COUNT (3 * CPU_COUNT)
+#define TASK_COUNT 3
 
 #define P(i) (UINT32_C(2) + i)
 
 #define ALL ((UINT32_C(1) << CPU_COUNT) - 1)
 
-#define IDLE UINT8_C(255)
+#define A(cpu0, cpu1) ( (cpu1 << 1) | cpu0 )
 
-#define NAME rtems_build_name('S', 'A', 'P', 'A')
+typedef enum {
+  T0,
+  T1,
+  T2,
+  IDLE
+} task_index;
 
 typedef struct {
   enum {
@@ -43,7 +49,7 @@ typedef struct {
 KIND_UNBLOCK
   } kind;
 
-  size_t index;
+  task_index index;
 
   struct {
 rtems_task_priority priority;
@@ -65,54 +71,59 @@ typedef struct {
 KIND_RESET, \
 0, \
 { 0 }, \
-{ IDLE, IDLE, IDLE, IDLE } \
+{ IDLE, IDLE} \
   }
 
-#define SET_PRIORITY(index, prio, cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3) \
+#define SET_PRIORITY(index, prio, cpu0, cpu1) \
   { \
 KIND_SET_PRIORITY, \
 index, \
 { .priority = prio }, \
-{ cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3 } \
+{ cpu0, cpu1} \
   }
 
-#define SET_AFFINITY(index, aff, cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3) \
+#define SET_AFFINITY(index, aff, cpu0, cpu1) \
   { \
 KIND_SET_AFFINITY, \
 index, \
 { .cpu_set = aff }, \
-{ cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3 } \
+{ cpu0, cpu1 } \
   }
 
-#define BLOCK(index, cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3) \
+#define BLOCK(index, cpu0, cpu1) \
   { \
 KIND_BLOCK, \
 index, \
 { 0 }, \
-{ cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3 } \
+{ cpu0, cpu1 } \
   }
 
-#define UNBLOCK(index, cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3) \
+#define UNBLOCK(index, cpu0, cpu1) \
   { \
 KIND_UNBLOCK, \
 index, \
 { 0 }, \
-{ cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3 } \
+{ cpu0, cpu1} \
   }
 
 static const test_action test_actions[] = {
   RESET,
-  UNBLOCK(  0,   0, IDLE, IDLE, IDLE),
-  UNBLOCK(  1,   0,1, IDLE, IDLE),
-  UNBLOCK(  2,   0,1,2, IDLE),
-  UNBLOCK(  3,   0,1,2,3),
-  UNBLOCK(  5,   0,1,2,3),
-  SET_PRIORITY( 3,  P(4),0,1,2,3),
-  SET_PRIORITY( 5,  P(3),0,1,2,5),
-  BLOCK(5,   0,1,2,3),
-  SET_AFFINITY( 5,   ALL,0,1,2,3),
-  RESET,
-  UNBLOCK(  0,   0, IDLE, IDLE, IDLE),
+  UNBLOCK(  T0,T0, IDLE),
+  UNBLOCK(  T1,T0,T1),
+  UNBLOCK(  T2,T0,T1),
+  SET_PRIORITY( T0,  P(0), T0,T1),
+  /*
+   * Introduce Task 2 intially with lowest priority to imitate late arrival
+   */
+  SET_PRIORITY( T2,  P(4), T0,T1),  
+  SET_PRIORITY( T1,  P(3), T0,T1),
+  SET_AFFINITY( T0,   ALL, T0,T1),
+  SET_AFFINITY( T1,   A(0, 1), T0,T1),
+  SET_AFFINITY( T2,   A(1, 0), T0,T1),
+  /*
+   * Show that higher priority task gets dislodged from its processor
+   */
+  SET_PRIORITY( T2,   P(2),T2,T0),
   RESET
 };
 
@@ -182,7 +193,7 @@ static void check_cpu_allocations(test_context *ctx, const 
test_action *action)
   size_t i;
 
   for (i = 0; i < CPU_COUNT; ++i) {
-size_t e;
+task_index e;
 const Per_CPU_Control *c;
 const Thread_Control *h;
 
@@ -279,7 +290,7 @@ static void test(void)
 
   for (i = 0; i < TASK_COUNT; ++i) {
 sc = rtems_task_create(
-  NAME,
+  rtems_build_name(' ', ' ', 'T', '0' + i),
   P(i),
   RTEMS_MINIMUM_STACK_SIZE,
   RTEMS_DEFAULT_MODES,
@@ -292,7 +303,10 @@ static void test(void)
 rtems_test_assert(sc == RTEMS_SUCCESSFUL);
   }
 
-  sc = rtems_timer_create(NAME, &ctx->timer_id);
+  sc = rtems_timer_create(
+rtems_build_name('A', 'C', 'T', 'N'),
+&ctx->timer_id
+  );
   rtems_test_assert(sc == RTEMS_SUCCESSFUL);
 
   sc = rtems_timer_fire_after(ctx->timer_id, 1, timer, ctx);
-- 
2.17.1

___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [PATCH] Add Strong APA 2nd test

[Richi Dubey]

Hi,

The Strong APA scheduler (
https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-August/061662.html) passes
this test as well. This test is again based on the example from page 6 of
the paper . This
test does not exactly work like the example in the paper does, but I need
your help in figuring out how to make tasks that have a WCET (i.e. that
they die out in some time, using a timer) to make something like that.

Thanks,
Richi.

On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 3:23 PM Richi Dubey  wrote:

> ---
>  testsuites/smptests/smpstrongapa01/init.c | 72 ++-
>  1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/testsuites/smptests/smpstrongapa01/init.c
> b/testsuites/smptests/smpstrongapa01/init.c
> index bf8bc05231..0daa768b48 100644
> --- a/testsuites/smptests/smpstrongapa01/init.c
> +++ b/testsuites/smptests/smpstrongapa01/init.c
> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
>  /*
> + * Copyright (c) 2020 Richi Dubey ( richidu...@gmail.com )
>   * Copyright (c) 2016, 2017 embedded brains GmbH.  All rights reserved.
>   *
>   *  embedded brains GmbH
> @@ -16,23 +17,28 @@
>  #include "config.h"
>  #endif
>
> -#include "tmacros.h"
> +#include 
>
>  #include 
>
>  const char rtems_test_name[] = "SMPSTRONGAPA 1";
>
> -#define CPU_COUNT 4
> +#define CPU_COUNT 2
>
> -#define TASK_COUNT (3 * CPU_COUNT)
> +#define TASK_COUNT 3
>
>  #define P(i) (UINT32_C(2) + i)
>
>  #define ALL ((UINT32_C(1) << CPU_COUNT) - 1)
>
> -#define IDLE UINT8_C(255)
> +#define A(cpu0, cpu1) ( (cpu1 << 1) | cpu0 )
>
> -#define NAME rtems_build_name('S', 'A', 'P', 'A')
> +typedef enum {
> +  T0,
> +  T1,
> +  T2,
> +  IDLE
> +} task_index;
>
>  typedef struct {
>enum {
> @@ -43,7 +49,7 @@ typedef struct {
>  KIND_UNBLOCK
>} kind;
>
> -  size_t index;
> +  task_index index;
>
>struct {
>  rtems_task_priority priority;
> @@ -65,54 +71,59 @@ typedef struct {
>  KIND_RESET, \
>  0, \
>  { 0 }, \
> -{ IDLE, IDLE, IDLE, IDLE } \
> +{ IDLE, IDLE} \
>}
>
> -#define SET_PRIORITY(index, prio, cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3) \
> +#define SET_PRIORITY(index, prio, cpu0, cpu1) \
>{ \
>  KIND_SET_PRIORITY, \
>  index, \
>  { .priority = prio }, \
> -{ cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3 } \
> +{ cpu0, cpu1} \
>}
>
> -#define SET_AFFINITY(index, aff, cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3) \
> +#define SET_AFFINITY(index, aff, cpu0, cpu1) \
>{ \
>  KIND_SET_AFFINITY, \
>  index, \
>  { .cpu_set = aff }, \
> -{ cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3 } \
> +{ cpu0, cpu1 } \
>}
>
> -#define BLOCK(index, cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3) \
> +#define BLOCK(index, cpu0, cpu1) \
>{ \
>  KIND_BLOCK, \
>  index, \
>  { 0 }, \
> -{ cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3 } \
> +{ cpu0, cpu1 } \
>}
>
> -#define UNBLOCK(index, cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3) \
> +#define UNBLOCK(index, cpu0, cpu1) \
>{ \
>  KIND_UNBLOCK, \
>  index, \
>  { 0 }, \
> -{ cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, cpu3 } \
> +{ cpu0, cpu1} \
>}
>
>  static const test_action test_actions[] = {
>RESET,
> -  UNBLOCK(  0,   0, IDLE, IDLE, IDLE),
> -  UNBLOCK(  1,   0,1, IDLE, IDLE),
> -  UNBLOCK(  2,   0,1,2, IDLE),
> -  UNBLOCK(  3,   0,1,2,3),
> -  UNBLOCK(  5,   0,1,2,3),
> -  SET_PRIORITY( 3,  P(4),0,1,2,3),
> -  SET_PRIORITY( 5,  P(3),0,1,2,5),
> -  BLOCK(5,   0,1,2,3),
> -  SET_AFFINITY( 5,   ALL,0,1,2,3),
> -  RESET,
> -  UNBLOCK(  0,   0, IDLE, IDLE, IDLE),
> +  UNBLOCK(  T0,T0, IDLE),
> +  UNBLOCK(  T1,T0,T1),
> +  UNBLOCK(  T2,T0,T1),
> +  SET_PRIORITY( T0,  P(0), T0,T1),
> +  /*
> +   * Introduce Task 2 intially with lowest priority to imitate late
> arrival
> +   */
> +  SET_PRIORITY( T2,  P(4), T0,T1),
> +  SET_PRIORITY( T1,  P(3), T0,T1),
> +  SET_AFFINITY( T0,   ALL, T0,T1),
> +  SET_AFFINITY( T1,   A(0, 1), T0,T1),
> +  SET_AFFINITY( T2,   A(1, 0), T0,T1),
> +  /*
> +   * Show that higher priority task gets dislodged from its processor
> +   */
> +  SET_PRIORITY( T2,   P(2),T2,T0),
>RESET
>  };
>
> @@ -182,7 +193,7 @@ static void check_cpu_allocations(test_context *ctx,
> const test_action *action)
>size_t i;
>
>for (i = 0; i < CPU_COUNT; ++i) {
> -size_t e;
> +task_index e;
>  const Per_CPU_Control *c;
>  const Thread_Control *h;
>
> @@ -279,7 +290,7 @@ static void test(void)
>
>for (i = 0; i < TASK_COUNT; ++i) {
>  sc = rtems_task_create(
> -  NAME,
> +  rtems_build_name(' ', ' ', 'T', '0' + i),
>P(i),
>RTEMS_MINIMUM_STACK_SIZE,
>RTEMS_DEFAULT_MODES,
> @@ -292,7 +303,10 @@ static void test(void)
>  rtems_test_assert(sc == RTEMS_SUCCESSFUL);
>}
>
> -  sc = rtems_timer_create(NAME, &ctx->timer_id);
> +  sc = rtems_timer_create(
>

Re: GSoC 2020 - Final project report

[Hesham Almatary]

Hello Utkarsh,

Thanks for the blog post. Are there any instructions on how can
someone (maybe a future GSoC student or someone else interested) get
your code tested (with test demos) and on which platform? A HOWTO
guide/blogpost will be great.

On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 at 00:51, Utkarsh Rai  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:18 AM Gedare Bloom  wrote:
>>
>> Similarly, I would like to have a consolidated set of links to "your
>> code" instead of having them woven in with the narrative and links to
>> blogs etc.
>>
>
> Ok, I will do that.
>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:33 PM Utkarsh Rai  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> > I have prepared a tentative final report for my project. You can view it 
>> > here. Note there are few changes to be made in the report based on my 
>> > progress this week as I am working on static initialization of PMP and the 
>> > v5 patch for thread-stack isolation and sharing.
>> > ___
>> > devel mailing list
>> > devel@rtems.org
>> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GSoC 2020 - Final project report

[Utkarsh Rai]

On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 3:59 PM Hesham Almatary <
hesham.almat...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hello Utkarsh,
>
> Thanks for the blog post. Are there any instructions on how can
> someone (maybe a future GSoC student or someone else interested) get
> your code tested (with test demos) and on which platform? A HOWTO
> guide/blogpost will be great.
>

Currently no, as there are a couple more tests that I want to get reviewed.
I will update my post according to your suggestions by today


>
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 at 00:51, Utkarsh Rai  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:18 AM Gedare Bloom  wrote:
> >>
> >> Similarly, I would like to have a consolidated set of links to "your
> >> code" instead of having them woven in with the narrative and links to
> >> blogs etc.
> >>
> >
> > Ok, I will do that.
> >
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:33 PM Utkarsh Rai 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hello,
> >> > I have prepared a tentative final report for my project. You can view
> it here. Note there are few changes to be made in the report based on my
> progress this week as I am working on static initialization of PMP and the
> v5 patch for thread-stack isolation and sharing.
> >> > ___
> >> > devel mailing list
> >> > devel@rtems.org
> >> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >
> > ___
> > devel mailing list
> > devel@rtems.org
> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GSoC 2020: Final Report (Beagle BSP: Add FDT based initialization)

[Niteesh G. S.]

Hello,
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:54 PM Christian Mauderer 
wrote:

> Hello Niteesh
>
> On 29/08/2020 11:22, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:02 PM Christian Mauderer  > > wrote:
> >
> > On 29/08/2020 05:57, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:19 AM Gedare Bloom  > 
> > > >> wrote:
> > >
> > > Are "Links to commits" 1-4 all the code you (are claiming you)
> > wrote?
> > > I just want to make sure. It looks fine to me.
> > >
> > > Yes, all the code in the commits is written by me.
> >
> > I think maybe "Links to branches" would be a better title. It is not
> a
> > single commit each but a few commits. Alternative would be to add
> links
> > to each commit.
> >
> >
> > I have changed the title to "Links to branches". Should I also add links
> > to the commits that were made in each phase at the end of the summary of
> > each phase?
> >
>
> If you want, you can do that.
>

I did try that but it didn't work out well, especially with the OFW commit.
Since I don't have the old commit I either had to leave that commit out
in the first phase or I had to post the newer commit in the first phase
itself which actually should in the last phase. So I decided to avoid adding
the commits and just leave it out with the branches.


The main point of that change was to highlight that it's not 4 commits
> but a bit more.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It has been quite a bit of back and forth during this GSoC project
> so I
> > think the result is quite OK.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 12:07 PM Niteesh G. S.
> > mailto:niteesh...@gmail.com>
> > > >>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I have prepared my final report for my project. You can have
> a
> > > look at it
> > > > here https://gs-niteesh.github.io/finalreport/. Please
> kindly
> > > review the report.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Niteesh.
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > devel mailing list
> > > devel@rtems.org 
> > > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > >
> >
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

GSoC End of Project Report

[Richi Dubey]

Hi,

Please check out my blog post that goes over everything that we completed
in the past 4 months of GSoC.

Link to the blog post:
https://rtemswithrichi.wordpress.com/strong-apa-scheduler/

Please let me know if the post serves the purpose and if it needs any
changes.

Thanks,
Richi.
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GSoC 2020: Final Report (Beagle BSP: Add FDT based initialization)

[Christian Mauderer]

On 29/08/2020 15:04, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> Hello,
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:54 PM Christian Mauderer  > wrote:
> 
> Hello Niteesh
> 
> On 29/08/2020 11:22, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:02 PM Christian Mauderer
> mailto:o...@c-mauderer.de>
> > >> wrote:
> >
> >     On 29/08/2020 05:57, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> >     > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:19 AM Gedare Bloom
> mailto:ged...@rtems.org>
> >     >
> >     > 
>  >     >
> >     >     Are "Links to commits" 1-4 all the code you (are
> claiming you)
> >     wrote?
> >     >     I just want to make sure. It looks fine to me.
> >     >
> >     > Yes, all the code in the commits is written by me.
> >
> >     I think maybe "Links to branches" would be a better title. It
> is not a
> >     single commit each but a few commits. Alternative would be to
> add links
> >     to each commit.
> >
> >
> > I have changed the title to "Links to branches". Should I also add
> links
> > to the commits that were made in each phase at the end of the
> summary of
> > each phase?
> >  
> 
> If you want, you can do that.
> 
> 
> I did try that but it didn't work out well, especially with the OFW commit.
> Since I don't have the old commit I either had to leave that commit out
> in the first phase or I had to post the newer commit in the first phase
> itself which actually should in the last phase. So I decided to avoid adding
> the commits and just leave it out with the branches.

That's OK too. Like I said: Main target was that it's clear that you
don't have four commits but a bit more.

> 
> 
> The main point of that change was to highlight that it's not 4 commits
> but a bit more.
> 
> >
> >      
> >
> >
> >     It has been quite a bit of back and forth during this GSoC
> project so I
> >     think the result is quite OK.
> >
> >     Best regards
> >
> >     Christian
> >
> >     >
> >     >     On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 12:07 PM Niteesh G. S.
> >     mailto:niteesh...@gmail.com>
> >
> >     >         >     wrote:
> >     >     >
> >     >     > Hello,
> >     >     >
> >     >     > I have prepared my final report for my project. You
> can have a
> >     >     look at it
> >     >     > here https://gs-niteesh.github.io/finalreport/. Please
> kindly
> >     >     review the report.
> >     >     >
> >     >     > Thanks,
> >     >     > Niteesh.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > ___
> >     > devel mailing list
> >     > devel@rtems.org 
> >
> >     > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >     >
> >
> 
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GSoC 2020: Final Report for BSP Buildset For EPICS

[Mritunjay Sharma]

Thanks a lot for the feedback!

I have consolidated in one section all commits written by me as advised by
you!

Here's the link:  http://bit.ly/gsoc-2020-final-report

Thank you so much!

On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:15 AM Gedare Bloom  wrote:

> Please consolidate in one section all the links to "your code
> written". I found the way you did it in Phases makes it a little hard
> to parse. otherwise, looks great thanks!
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 4:28 PM Mritunjay Sharma
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > First of all, thank you so much to all the mentors
> > for being so supportive and helpful that helped me out
> > with this project.
> >
> > I have tried to make a final report which is detailed and with my
> > code links. This is the link to my final report:
> http://bit.ly/gsoc-2020-final-report
> >
> > Please do a review and share your feedback and suggestions
> > for any improvements.
> >
> > Thank you so much!
> > Mritunjay Sharma
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GSoC 2020: Final Report (Beagle BSP: Add FDT based initialization)

[Gedare Bloom]

On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 8:31 AM Christian Mauderer  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 29/08/2020 15:04, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> > Hello,
> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:54 PM Christian Mauderer  > > wrote:
> >
> > Hello Niteesh
> >
> > On 29/08/2020 11:22, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:02 PM Christian Mauderer
> > mailto:o...@c-mauderer.de>
> > > >> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 29/08/2020 05:57, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:19 AM Gedare Bloom
> > mailto:ged...@rtems.org>
> > > >
> > > > 
> >  > > >
> > > > Are "Links to commits" 1-4 all the code you (are
> > claiming you)
> > > wrote?
> > > > I just want to make sure. It looks fine to me.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, all the code in the commits is written by me.
> > >
> > > I think maybe "Links to branches" would be a better title. It
> > is not a
> > > single commit each but a few commits. Alternative would be to
> > add links
> > > to each commit.
> > >
> > >
> > > I have changed the title to "Links to branches". Should I also add
> > links
> > > to the commits that were made in each phase at the end of the
> > summary of
> > > each phase?
> > >
> >
> > If you want, you can do that.
> >
> >
> > I did try that but it didn't work out well, especially with the OFW commit.
> > Since I don't have the old commit I either had to leave that commit out
> > in the first phase or I had to post the newer commit in the first phase
> > itself which actually should in the last phase. So I decided to avoid adding
> > the commits and just leave it out with the branches.
>
> That's OK too. Like I said: Main target was that it's clear that you
> don't have four commits but a bit more.
>

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't notice this. We actually do want it to be
distinctly your commits. Since you have commits that are older than
this GSoC in rtems, you can't use the author filtering feature
(https://github.com/gs-niteesh/rtems/commits/beagle-rtems6-pinmux-18-aug?author=gs-niteesh)
so you'll probably need to generate the links to each commit.

This is something required by Google.

> >
> >
> > The main point of that change was to highlight that it's not 4 commits
> > but a bit more.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It has been quite a bit of back and forth during this GSoC
> > project so I
> > > think the result is quite OK.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > > Christian
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 12:07 PM Niteesh G. S.
> > > mailto:niteesh...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > >  >   >  > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have prepared my final report for my project. You
> > can have a
> > > > look at it
> > > > > here https://gs-niteesh.github.io/finalreport/. Please
> > kindly
> > > > review the report.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Niteesh.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > devel mailing list
> > > > devel@rtems.org 
> > >
> > > > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > > >
> > >
> >
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GSoC 2020: Final Report for BSP Buildset For EPICS

[Gedare Bloom]

Thanks, this looks fine.

On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:53 PM Mritunjay Sharma
 wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot for the feedback!
>
> I have consolidated in one section all commits written by me as advised by 
> you!
>
> Here's the link:  http://bit.ly/gsoc-2020-final-report
>
> Thank you so much!
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:15 AM Gedare Bloom  wrote:
>>
>> Please consolidate in one section all the links to "your code
>> written". I found the way you did it in Phases makes it a little hard
>> to parse. otherwise, looks great thanks!
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 4:28 PM Mritunjay Sharma
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> > First of all, thank you so much to all the mentors
>> > for being so supportive and helpful that helped me out
>> > with this project.
>> >
>> > I have tried to make a final report which is detailed and with my
>> > code links. This is the link to my final report: 
>> > http://bit.ly/gsoc-2020-final-report
>> >
>> > Please do a review and share your feedback and suggestions
>> > for any improvements.
>> >
>> > Thank you so much!
>> > Mritunjay Sharma
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GSoC 2020: Final Report for BSP Buildset For EPICS

[Mritunjay Sharma]

Thank you so much all the mentors!

I have completed my evaluation :)

I will continue contributing and make this project better
and better. Thank you so much for being kind and understanding
always!

Mritunjay

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 2:26 AM Gedare Bloom  wrote:

> Thanks, this looks fine.
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:53 PM Mritunjay Sharma
>  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks a lot for the feedback!
> >
> > I have consolidated in one section all commits written by me as advised
> by you!
> >
> > Here's the link:  http://bit.ly/gsoc-2020-final-report
> >
> > Thank you so much!
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:15 AM Gedare Bloom  wrote:
> >>
> >> Please consolidate in one section all the links to "your code
> >> written". I found the way you did it in Phases makes it a little hard
> >> to parse. otherwise, looks great thanks!
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 4:28 PM Mritunjay Sharma
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hello everyone,
> >> >
> >> > First of all, thank you so much to all the mentors
> >> > for being so supportive and helpful that helped me out
> >> > with this project.
> >> >
> >> > I have tried to make a final report which is detailed and with my
> >> > code links. This is the link to my final report:
> http://bit.ly/gsoc-2020-final-report
> >> >
> >> > Please do a review and share your feedback and suggestions
> >> > for any improvements.
> >> >
> >> > Thank you so much!
> >> > Mritunjay Sharma
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GSoC 2020: Final Report (Beagle BSP: Add FDT based initialization)

[Niteesh G. S.]

Hello,

I have updated the blog to contain the links to the commits
instead of the branches. Please have a look again.
https://gs-niteesh.github.io/finalreport/

And sorry to disturb on the weekend,  but we have only about
a day left before the submission deadline, so I request
everyone to please take a look and let me know if you would
like to change anything.

Thanks,
Niteesh.

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 2:24 AM Gedare Bloom  wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 8:31 AM Christian Mauderer 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29/08/2020 15:04, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:54 PM Christian Mauderer  > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Niteesh
> > >
> > > On 29/08/2020 11:22, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:02 PM Christian Mauderer
> > > mailto:o...@c-mauderer.de>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 29/08/2020 05:57, Niteesh G. S. wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:19 AM Gedare Bloom
> > > mailto:ged...@rtems.org>
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > >  > > > >
> > > > > Are "Links to commits" 1-4 all the code you (are
> > > claiming you)
> > > > wrote?
> > > > > I just want to make sure. It looks fine to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, all the code in the commits is written by me.
> > > >
> > > > I think maybe "Links to branches" would be a better title. It
> > > is not a
> > > > single commit each but a few commits. Alternative would be to
> > > add links
> > > > to each commit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have changed the title to "Links to branches". Should I also
> add
> > > links
> > > > to the commits that were made in each phase at the end of the
> > > summary of
> > > > each phase?
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you want, you can do that.
> > >
> > >
> > > I did try that but it didn't work out well, especially with the OFW
> commit.
> > > Since I don't have the old commit I either had to leave that commit out
> > > in the first phase or I had to post the newer commit in the first phase
> > > itself which actually should in the last phase. So I decided to avoid
> adding
> > > the commits and just leave it out with the branches.
> >
> > That's OK too. Like I said: Main target was that it's clear that you
> > don't have four commits but a bit more.
> >
>
> Oh, I'm sorry I didn't notice this. We actually do want it to be
> distinctly your commits. Since you have commits that are older than
> this GSoC in rtems, you can't use the author filtering feature
> (
> https://github.com/gs-niteesh/rtems/commits/beagle-rtems6-pinmux-18-aug?author=gs-niteesh
> )
> so you'll probably need to generate the links to each commit.
>
> This is something required by Google.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > The main point of that change was to highlight that it's not 4
> commits
> > > but a bit more.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It has been quite a bit of back and forth during this GSoC
> > > project so I
> > > > think the result is quite OK.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards
> > > >
> > > > Christian
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 12:07 PM Niteesh G. S.
> > > > mailto:niteesh...@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > >  > >   > >  > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have prepared my final report for my project. You
> > > can have a
> > > > > look at it
> > > > > > here https://gs-niteesh.github.io/finalreport/.
> Please
> > > kindly
> > > > > review the report.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Niteesh.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > devel mailing list
> > > > > devel@rtems.org 
> > > >
> > > > > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel