Re: Console Input with xilinx_zynq_a9_qemu

On 14/9/2022 2:45 pm, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 6:27 PM Chris Johns > wrote: > On 14/9/2022 7:40 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > This appears to be broken yet again. I am using qemu 5.1.91 built with > the RSB > > back in July. Does this work f

Re: Console Input with xilinx_zynq_a9_qemu

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 6:27 PM Chris Johns wrote: > On 14/9/2022 7:40 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > This appears to be broken yet again. I am using qemu 5.1.91 built with > the RSB > > back in July. Does this work for anyone? > > > > Advice or (even better) a fix appreciated. > > It has been broken

Re: [PATCH 3/3] bsps/shared/: Use device tree blob

Hi Padmarao, I am working on a RISC-V bsp variant for the Kendryte K210 and I am also using an included DTB. For my k210 bsp, I changed riscv/shared/start/start.S to set the address of the DTB array before calling bsp_fdt_copy. If we change start.S to handle the following three cases, we would not

Re: Console Input with xilinx_zynq_a9_qemu

On 14/9/2022 7:40 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > This appears to be broken yet again. I am using qemu 5.1.91 built with the RSB > back in July. Does this work for anyone? > > Advice or (even better) a fix appreciated. It has been broken for a while. I first noticed it after the development branch swi

Console Input with xilinx_zynq_a9_qemu

Hi This appears to be broken yet again. I am using qemu 5.1.91 built with the RSB back in July. Does this work for anyone? Advice or (even better) a fix appreciated. --joel ___ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/

Re: Integrating the Formal Methods part of Qualification

Dear Andrew, It's great to see a move toward formal verification for RTEMS. >From our side (TU Dortmund in Germany and the University of Twente in the Netherlands), we recently adopted Frama-C to verify ICPP and MrsP. A potential deadlock is successfully identified, and a remedy is provided. The

Re: [PATCH] icpp remedy

Thanks for the prompt reply. Yes, I will guide Junjie to make a ticket and go through the issue. >Is there a test case for this? Yes, a test case is also ready to be reviewed and can be part of the testsuite to test out ICPP (MrsP should also pass). > If it applies to 5 or 4.11, there needs to be

Re: [PATCH] icpp remedy

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 1:14 PM Kuan-Hsun Chen wrote: > (Oh, I just noticed that the patch was submitted faster than my mail to > share this patch :P). > No problem. That's why I asked what the issue was. It needs at least a much better log message. It needs a ticket given the gravity of the issu

Re: [PATCH] icpp remedy

What is this a remedy for? Why isn't the helper method OK to use? --joel On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 7:41 AM Strange369 wrote: > --- > cpukit/include/rtems/score/coremuteximpl.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/cpukit/include/rtems/score/coremuteximpl.h > b

[PATCH] icpp remedy

--- cpukit/include/rtems/score/coremuteximpl.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/cpukit/include/rtems/score/coremuteximpl.h b/cpukit/include/rtems/score/coremuteximpl.h index d489a0d946..72d32f8030 100644 --- a/cpukit/include/rtems/score/coremuteximpl.h +++ b/cpu

eng: Add Formal Verification chapter v2

Dear RTEMS Developers, The inlined patch file below adds a new Formal Verification chapter as discussed in the previous email thread regarding "Integrating the Formal Methods part of Qualification" (see https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2022-July/072167.html ). This is just the documenta

eng: Add Formal Verification chapter

Dear RTEMS Developers, The attached patch file adds a new Formal Verification chapter as discussed in the previous email thread regarding "Integrating the Formal Methods part of Qualification" (see https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2022-July/072167.html ). This is just the documentation