On 9/7/21 3:39 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 08/07/2021 03:11, Kinsey Moore wrote:
>> I wonder why this never came up with Zynq or QorIQ. Maybe no one wanted to
>> run
>> network tests on the alternate interfaces because dev boards with those
>> interfaces configured didn't exist? It's possible
On 08/07/2021 03:11, Kinsey Moore wrote:
I wonder why this never came up with Zynq or QorIQ. Maybe no one wanted
to run network tests on the alternate interfaces because dev boards with
those interfaces configured didn't exist? It's possible that the ukphy
driver could be improved and this enti
On 7/8/2021 19:43, Chris Johns wrote:
On 9/7/21 7:32 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
On 7/8/2021 10:36, Kinsey Moore wrote:
The solutions to the remainder of the problem are:
1) Use a different, smarter PHY driver and avoid use of ukphy when multiple
interfaces are present
** This could possibly solv
On 9/7/21 7:32 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> On 7/8/2021 10:36, Kinsey Moore wrote:
>> On 7/8/2021 02:48, Chris Johns wrote:
>>> On 8/7/21 11:11 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
On 7/7/2021 19:28, Chris Johns wrote:
> We can:
> 1. Add FDT support. This is something I would like to avoid as it adds
On 7/8/2021 10:36, Kinsey Moore wrote:
On 7/8/2021 02:48, Chris Johns wrote:
On 8/7/21 11:11 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
On 7/7/2021 19:28, Chris Johns wrote:
We can:
1. Add FDT support. This is something I would like to avoid as it
adds an extra
layer of dependency and it complicates backwards c
On 7/8/2021 02:48, Chris Johns wrote:
On 8/7/21 11:11 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
On 7/7/2021 19:28, Chris Johns wrote:
We can:
1. Add FDT support. This is something I would like to avoid as it adds an extra
layer of dependency and it complicates backwards compatibility for existing
users. I howeve
On 8/7/21 11:11 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> On 7/7/2021 19:28, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 7/7/21 11:26 pm, Kinsey Moore wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2021 21:20, Chris Johns wrote:
On 7/7/21 12:03 pm, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> On 7/6/2021 20:57, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 7/7/21 11:05 am, Kinsey Moore wrote
On 7/7/2021 19:28, Chris Johns wrote:
On 7/7/21 11:26 pm, Kinsey Moore wrote:
On 7/6/2021 21:20, Chris Johns wrote:
On 7/7/21 12:03 pm, Kinsey Moore wrote:
On 7/6/2021 20:57, Chris Johns wrote:
On 7/7/21 11:05 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
The need for the difference on ZynqMP is that there are 4
On 7/7/21 11:26 pm, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> On 7/6/2021 21:20, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 7/7/21 12:03 pm, Kinsey Moore wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2021 20:57, Chris Johns wrote:
On 7/7/21 11:05 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> The need for the difference on ZynqMP is that there are 4 different CGEM
> inte
On 7/6/2021 21:20, Chris Johns wrote:
On 7/7/21 12:03 pm, Kinsey Moore wrote:
On 7/6/2021 20:57, Chris Johns wrote:
On 7/7/21 11:05 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
The need for the difference on ZynqMP is that there are 4 different CGEM
interfaces of which dev boards primarily make use of CGEM3.
RTEM
On 7/7/21 12:03 pm, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> On 7/6/2021 20:57, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 7/7/21 11:05 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
>>> The need for the difference on ZynqMP is that there are 4 different CGEM
>>> interfaces of which dev boards primarily make use of CGEM3.
>> RTEMS_BSD_DRIVER_XILINX_ZYNQMP_C
On 7/6/2021 20:57, Chris Johns wrote:
On 7/7/21 11:05 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
The need for the difference on ZynqMP is that there are 4 different CGEM
interfaces of which dev boards primarily make use of CGEM3.
RTEMS_BSD_DRIVER_XILINX_ZYNQMP_CGEM0(ZYNQMP_IRQ_ETHERNET_0);
RTEMS_BSD_DRIVER_XILI
On 7/7/21 11:05 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> The need for the difference on ZynqMP is that there are 4 different CGEM
> interfaces of which dev boards primarily make use of CGEM3.
RTEMS_BSD_DRIVER_XILINX_ZYNQMP_CGEM0(ZYNQMP_IRQ_ETHERNET_0);
RTEMS_BSD_DRIVER_XILINX_ZYNQMP_CGEM1(ZYNQMP_IRQ_ETHERNET_1)
On 7/6/2021 18:55, Chris Johns wrote:
On 7/7/21 5:46 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
This is an alternate patch to solve the issue of test-related information being
included in an installed application-targeted header.
Why is the ZYNQMP different to the zync BSP? I have been running the tests on
the
On 7/7/21 5:46 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> This is an alternate patch to solve the issue of test-related information
> being included in an installed application-targeted header.
Why is the ZYNQMP different to the zync BSP? I have been running the tests on
the zynq for years and the CGEM hard IP is
: Use a separate header for test devices
Devices used specifically for testing are now contained in a separate
nexus-test-devices.h so as not to pollute default hardware
configurations with test-specific information. This header is currently
only used for network tests.
---
rtemsbsd/include/bsp/nexus
Devices used specifically for testing are now contained in a separate
nexus-test-devices.h so as not to pollute default hardware
configurations with test-specific information. This header is currently
only used for network tests.
---
rtemsbsd/include/bsp/nexus-devices.h | 24
rte
17 matches
Mail list logo
