On 20/1/20 4:38 pm, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 3/1/20 11:31 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> ---
>> common/rtemsdomain.py | 14 +-
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/common/rtemsdomain.py b/common/rtemsdomain.py
>> index 49d0728..018e7ed 100644
>> --- a/com
On 3/1/20 11:31 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> ---
> common/rtemsdomain.py | 14 +-
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/common/rtemsdomain.py b/common/rtemsdomain.py
> index 49d0728..018e7ed 100644
> --- a/common/rtemsdomain.py
> +++ b/common/rtemsdomain.p
On 3/1/20 11:30 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> I work currently on the first chapters of the RTEMS Software Engineering
> manual.
> I came across the term "RTEMS Qualifaction Project" and also "RTEMS
> Documentation Project". What the "RTEMS Project" is, is more or less clear.
Clear to whom? Yes t
On 17/12/19 4:57 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> My experience tells me that doing a BSP development without a debugger is a
> waste of time.
Sometimes getting a working debugger is more effort than getting a BSP to work.
The Pi is an example. I believe Alan used print statements.
Chris
___
On 19/01/2020 20:42, Alan Cudmore wrote:
> I tried the latest RTEMS master on my collection of single core RPis and
> they all worked. I used the kernel_address=0x20 option in the
> config.txt file.
> The BSP did not identify the RPi Model B (26 pin GPIO header) or the RPi
> Model A+ (1.1) sinc
I tried the latest RTEMS master on my collection of single core RPis and
they all worked. I used the kernel_address=0x20 option in the
config.txt file.
The BSP did not identify the RPi Model B (26 pin GPIO header) or the RPi
Model A+ (1.1) since they use the older device ID register format. It'
Modify the status code returned by _CORE_message_queue_Submit() when it
detects a wait bout to happen in an ISR (which would be deadly) to
return a status which translated to EAGAIN instead of ENOMEM.
(This is only relevant for POSIX message queues, since classic message
queues cannot block on sen
