Re: [PATCH 0/1] c-user: Generate I/O Manager documentation

On 02/10/2020 02:23, Chris Johns wrote: On 1/10/20 3:01 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 01/10/2020 06:11, Chris Johns wrote: On 30/9/20 12:59 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: Where is the source of this generated documentation? I would like to review that side of things and how it is generated before

Re: [PATCH 1/1] c-user: Generate I/O Manager documentation

On 2/10/20 4:04 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 02/10/2020 01:32, Chris Johns wrote: > >> On 30/9/20 12:59 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> The manager documentation is a consolidation of the comments in Doxygen >>> markup and the documentation sources in Sphinx markup. >> With the Doxygen comments

Re: [PATCH 1/1] c-user: Generate I/O Manager documentation

On 02/10/2020 01:32, Chris Johns wrote: On 30/9/20 12:59 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: The manager documentation is a consolidation of the comments in Doxygen markup and the documentation sources in Sphinx markup. With the Doxygen comments being merged are the attributions also being merged? Ye

Re: [PATCH 0/1] c-user: Generate I/O Manager documentation

On 02/10/2020 01:29, Chris Johns wrote: On 2/10/20 2:32 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:53 AM Sebastian Huber mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote: This one has calling sequence, parameters, description: https://ftp.rtems.org/pub/rtems/people/sebh/c-

Re: waf bsp_defaults sometimes includes multiple BSPs

On 01/10/2020 23:38, Joel Sherrill wrote: I am generating a uniquely named ini file per BSP. In doing an ls -l, I noticed the size varied by at least a factor of three. This is because when some BSPs are put in, the entire family is being included.  I suspected this happens when a BSP name mat

Release 4.11.4 date set to 7th Oct 2020

Hello, I would like create a 4.11.4 release next week. I am reviewing the tickets against the 4.11.4 milestone. I have closed a number of tickets as `wontfix`. If they are required please reopen, assign to the 4.11.5 milestone with a suitable fix or someone tasked to work on a fix. I will create

Re: waf bsp_defaults sometimes includes multiple BSPs

On 2/10/20 7:38 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > I am generating a uniquely named ini file per BSP. What about doing: echo "[arch/bsp]" > config-arch-bsp.ini For example: echo "[arm/lpc32xx_mzx_stage_1]" > config-arm-lpc32xx_mzx_stage_1.ini I have concerns about the long term effects of users dump

Re: [PATCH 0/1] c-user: Generate I/O Manager documentation

On 1/10/20 3:01 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 01/10/2020 06:11, Chris Johns wrote: >> On 30/9/20 12:59 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> Where is the source of this generated documentation? I would like to review >> that >> side of things and how it is generated before I am OK with this change. > >

Re: [PATCH 1/1] c-user: Generate I/O Manager documentation

On 30/9/20 12:59 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: > The manager documentation is a consolidation of the comments in Doxygen > markup and the documentation sources in Sphinx markup. With the Doxygen comments being merged are the attributions also being merged? Chris _

Re: [PATCH 0/1] c-user: Generate I/O Manager documentation

On 2/10/20 2:32 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:53 AM Sebastian Huber > > > wrote: > > This one has calling sequence, parameters, description: > > https://ftp.rtems.org/pub/rtems/people/sebh/c-user-4.pdf > > > This is pref

Re: [PATCH] leon,gr1553b: improve init check

On 2/10/20 1:54 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 7:40 PM wrote: > preferred to have { } wrapping 1-liners, but ok in BSPs. The patch is the one pushed to master and referenced in the ticket. I would prefer not to touch it. Chris ___ de

waf bsp_defaults sometimes includes multiple BSPs

Hi I am generating a uniquely named ini file per BSP. In doing an ls -l, I noticed the size varied by at least a factor of three. This is because when some BSPs are put in, the entire family is being included. I suspected this happens when a BSP name matches the family name but leon3 doesn't trip

Re: waf default number of jobs

On 01/10/2020 21:53, Joel Sherrill wrote: + make -j24 real    1m53.064s user    7m14.675s sys     1m45.913s . + ./waf -j 24 real    1m1.404s user    0m9.601s sys     0m1.547s Notice how the build time for waf is 50 seconds faster but that doesn't match the user and system time. Perhaps t

Re: waf default number of jobs

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 2:39 PM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 01/10/2020 20:09, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > What was the rationale behind the choice of the default for the number > > of jobs for the waf build system? > I don't know. It is the default behaviour of

[PATCH] build: Scope RTEMS_MULTIPROCESSING option

Enable it only for selected BSPs. Improve description. --- spec/build/cpukit/optmpci.yml | 15 +-- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/spec/build/cpukit/optmpci.yml b/spec/build/cpukit/optmpci.yml index cf72cf4b6e..8cac36c4d3 100644 --- a/spec/build/cpukit/op

Re: waf default number of jobs

On 01/10/2020 20:09, Joel Sherrill wrote: What was the rationale behind the choice of the default for the number of jobs for the waf build system? I don't know. It is the default behaviour of waf. I noticed also scalability problems but had no time to track them down. It could be also a limita

waf default number of jobs

Hi What was the rationale behind the choice of the default for the number of jobs for the waf build system? I know there isn't a good default because there is a huge difference between being able to completely use a computer or just do build more or less in the background. Historically, the numb

Re: [PATCH 0/1] c-user: Generate I/O Manager documentation

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:53 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 29/09/2020 16:59, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > > This is the first generated documentation of a manager. For the PDF > > output please have a look at: > > > > https://ftp.rtems.org/pub/rtems/people/sebh

Re: [PATCH] rtems: Add RTEMS_PARTITION_ALIGNMENT

On 01/10/2020 17:22, Gedare Bloom wrote: ok, this should be documented in the partition manager docs I will work on this after the integration of the IO manager changes: https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-October/062443.html ___ devel mai

Re: [PATCH] Entangle the C Program Heap initialization

On 01/10/2020 17:51, Gedare Bloom wrote: On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 9:45 AM Joel Sherrill wrote: On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:07 AM Gedare Bloom wrote: This looks ok to me. I suppose eliminating the dependency requires the function pointer indirection. The only thing I don't see is why redefinitio

Re: [PATCH] Entangle the C Program Heap initialization

On 01/10/2020 17:07, Gedare Bloom wrote: This looks ok to me. I suppose eliminating the dependency requires the function pointer indirection. The only thing I don't see is why redefinition of the _Workspace_Malloc_initializer is allowed in both wkspacemallocinitdefault.c and in confdefs/wkspace.

Re: [PATCH] leon,gr1553b: improve init check

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 7:40 PM wrote: > > From: Daniel Hellstrom > > Check in init3 not needed since same data is already checked in init2 > stage. Adds an extra check that the APB register space is available before > accessing it. > > Closes #2331 > --- > c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc/shared/1553/gr1

Re: [PATCH 0/1] c-user: Generate I/O Manager documentation

On 29/09/2020 16:59, Sebastian Huber wrote: This is the first generated documentation of a manager. For the PDF output please have a look at: https://ftp.rtems.org/pub/rtems/people/sebh/c-user.pdf Please review the layout. I changed the layout to use definition lists instead of tables. The b

Re: [PATCH] Entangle the C Program Heap initialization

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 9:45 AM Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:07 AM Gedare Bloom wrote: >> >> This looks ok to me. I suppose eliminating the dependency requires the >> function pointer indirection. The only thing I don't see is why >> redefinition of the _Workspace_Malloc_

Re: [PATCH] rtems: Canonicalize name and id check

looks good On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 8:27 AM Sebastian Huber wrote: > > Check the name followed by the id check in all create directives. > > Compare pointers against NULL. Fix formatting. > --- > cpukit/rtems/src/msgqconstruct.c | 8 +- > cpukit/rtems/src/partcreate.c

Re: [PATCH] Entangle the C Program Heap initialization

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:07 AM Gedare Bloom wrote: > This looks ok to me. I suppose eliminating the dependency requires the > function pointer indirection. The only thing I don't see is why > redefinition of the _Workspace_Malloc_initializer is allowed in both > wkspacemallocinitdefault.c and in

Re: [PATCH] rtems: Add RTEMS_PARTITION_ALIGNMENT

ok, this should be documented in the partition manager docs On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 6:37 AM Sebastian Huber wrote: > > Update #4105. > --- > cpukit/include/rtems/rtems/part.h | 9 + > testsuites/psxtests/psxconfig01/init.c | 2 +- > testsuites/sptests/sppartition_err01/i

Re: [PATCH] Entangle the C Program Heap initialization

This looks ok to me. I suppose eliminating the dependency requires the function pointer indirection. The only thing I don't see is why redefinition of the _Workspace_Malloc_initializer is allowed in both wkspacemallocinitdefault.c and in confdefs/wkspace.h. I would think that will cause an error fo

BSP Sweep #1 Report

Hi Well after 33 hours of building, the patch for SMP option validation, and the start of a discussion on other options, here is my summary report. BSPs:203 Total: 1497 Passed: 989 Failed: 507 Failed autoconf: 215 Failed waf: 292 Failed (NOSMP): 34 The full summary (odd phrasin

Configure Options Not Universally Supported (Multiprocessing to Start)

Hi After the discussion on enable SMP, it occurred to me that the multiprocessing configuration is only supported by a few BSPs. Is this one which also should have to pass a BSP support filter to pass configure? The BSPs I can think of are psim, leon3 family, and mvme147. There may be more but a

Re: [PATCH] build: Enable RTEMS_SMP only for selected BSPs

This looks good to me. I will use the same list to avoid SMP on the autoconf build system. I'll start another thread for the next option question --joel On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 6:38 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > --- > spec/build/cpukit/optsmp.yml | 33 +++

RE: [PATCH v2 7/8] bsps: Add Cortex-A53 LP64 basic BSP

-Original Message- From: Sebastian Huber Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 00:05 To: Kinsey Moore ; devel@rtems.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] bsps: Add Cortex-A53 LP64 basic BSP On 30/09/2020 22:04, Kinsey Moore wrote: > -Original Message- > From: Sebastian Huber > Sent: Tuesday,

[PATCH] build: Enable RTEMS_SMP only for selected BSPs

--- spec/build/cpukit/optsmp.yml | 33 - 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/spec/build/cpukit/optsmp.yml b/spec/build/cpukit/optsmp.yml index 138837e575..5e5f8a35c9 100644 --- a/spec/build/cpukit/optsmp.yml +++ b/spec/build/cpukit/optsmp.y