On 21/10/15 01:24, Chris Johns wrote:
On 21/10/2015 12:56 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 10/20/2015 6:15 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Maybe we should build a list of BSP directories and find maintainers for
each directory in some time frame. Then remove all BSPs without a
maintainer.
That is one
On 21/10/15 06:15, Chris Johns wrote:
On 20/10/2015 9:10 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 20/10/15 00:46, Chris Johns wrote:
Was this patch posted tode...@rtems.org for review?
No,
Should we be reviewing BSP patches?
since this is a BSP specific patch.
The shared BSP source tree is a grey ar
On 20/10/15 16:02, Isaac Gutekunst wrote:
Hi Devel,
I'm pretty sure this is a devel question, not users.
I'm working with a colleague at Vecna to port lwIP to the STM32F7 BSP
we've developed.
We have a basic HTTP server that prints out the current list of tasks.
We refresh the page at a
I have discussed dropping BSPs from support and from a technical point I
fully agree that this must be done. We should have some sort of active
BSPs which are regularily tested.
On the other hand, RTEMS can only live and grow, if it is attrative
enough for new users. Therefore we should not si
On 20/10/2015 9:10 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 20/10/15 00:46, Chris Johns wrote:
>> Was this patch posted tode...@rtems.org for review?
>
> No,
Should we be reviewing BSP patches?
> since this is a BSP specific patch.
The shared BSP source tree is a grey area and I understand that. The
s
On 20/10/2015 9:56 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 20/10/15 00:39, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> Did I miss all discussion and review of this patch set?
>
> I am actually a bit surprised that this patch set turned out to be a bit
> controversial. I just want to use U-Boot provided parameters in one
> p
On 21/10/2015 12:56 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 10/20/2015 6:15 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> Maybe we should build a list of BSP directories and find maintainers for
>> each directory in some time frame. Then remove all BSPs without a
>> maintainer.
>
> That is one approach. Another is defining
On 10/20/2015 6:13 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
On 21/10/2015 9:30 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
I bumped binutils to 2.25 and can build a moxie toolset. This
is the first time in a while.
Excellent. This is ok for 4.11.
And I found a typo in moxiesim/configure.ac and have now built
that BSP.
I don
On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 17:53 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Thank you.
>
> I have made these changes. Did the explanation make enough sense
> where you would know what it did? :)
Sure! I'm not clear on how the maximum file size is determined, but
since you've enumerated them all I don't really need
On 21/10/2015 9:30 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> I bumped binutils to 2.25 and can build a moxie toolset. This
> is the first time in a while.
Excellent. This is ok for 4.11.
> Should the other targets be bumped to 2.25 for RTEMS 4.11?
> Or just the moxie?
I suggest just moxie until 4.11.0 and t
Thank you.
I have made these changes. Did the explanation make enough sense
where you would know what it did? :)
On 10/20/2015 5:41 PM, Nick Withers wrote:
A couple of doco typos...
On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 14:47 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
closes #2431.
---
cpukit/sapi/include/confdefs.h
A couple of doco typos...
On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 14:47 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> closes #2431.
> ---
> cpukit/sapi/include/confdefs.h | 14
> doc/user/conf.t | 55
> ++
> testsuites/psxtests/psximfs02/init.c |4 +-
>
Hi
I bumped binutils to 2.25 and can build a moxie toolset. This
is the first time in a while.
Should the other targets be bumped to 2.25 for RTEMS 4.11?
Or just the moxie?
--joel
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/l
closes #2431.
---
cpukit/sapi/include/confdefs.h | 14
doc/user/conf.t | 55 ++
testsuites/psxtests/psximfs02/init.c |4 +-
3 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cpukit/sapi/include/confdefs.h b/c
Hi Devel,
I'm pretty sure this is a devel question, not users.
I'm working with a colleague at Vecna to port lwIP to the STM32F7 BSP we've
developed.
We have a basic HTTP server that prints out the current list of tasks. We refresh the page at a
very high rate, and after about 1-30 minutes,
On 10/20/2015 6:15 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hallo,
I would remove all 16-bit or less targets.
I previously posted suggesting the avr, h8300, and m32r be
removed. No one has commented so far.
I want to write two wiki pages as I go. One on removing a
BSP and another on removing an architec
Hallo,
I would remove all 16-bit or less targets.
Maybe we should build a list of BSP directories and find maintainers for
each directory in some time frame. Then remove all BSPs without a
maintainer.
On 14/10/15 02:06, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi
I am looking for suggestions on BSPs to remove
On 20/10/15 00:39, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Did I miss all discussion and review of this patch set?
I am actually a bit surprised that this patch set turned out to be a bit
controversial. I just want to use U-Boot provided parameters in one
particular BSP at the moment. For this BSP there is no a
On 20/10/15 00:46, Chris Johns wrote:
Was this patch posted tode...@rtems.org for review?
No, since this is a BSP specific patch.
I do not remember any discussion about how BSPs and FDT will be
supported.
U-Boot supports FDT for several years now. So, all U-Boot based BSPs may
use this o
19 matches
Mail list logo
