On 20/01/2022 17:07, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Sebastian... I thought you mentioned there were some sparc BSPs with hardware
results posted and should be tier 1.
I never posted results to bu...@rtems.org so formally they are not tier
1. Also the RTEMS pre-qualification was done on modified RTEMS so
Grrr... the tiers configuration files are also out of date. Patches
will be coming.
Sebastian... I thought you mentioned there were some sparc BSPs with hardware
results posted and should be tier 1. This is all there is there now:
[tier-1]
archs = aarch64, arm, i386, powerpc
bsps_aarch64 = xilin
On 20/1/22 9:04 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 2:56 PM Chris Johns wrote:
>>
>> On 20/1/22 5:08 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>> Are the Tier 1 architectures/BSPs documented anywhere besides an INI file?
>>
>> I do not think they are.
>
> Me either. I vaguely recall we have had th
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 2:56 PM Chris Johns wrote:
>
> On 20/1/22 5:08 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > Are the Tier 1 architectures/BSPs documented anywhere besides an INI file?
>
> I do not think they are.
Me either. I vaguely recall we have had this conversation before.
Where should they be? Seba
On 20/1/22 5:08 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Are the Tier 1 architectures/BSPs documented anywhere besides an INI file?
I do not think they are.
Chris
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Are the Tier 1 architectures/BSPs documented anywhere besides an INI file?
--joel
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 11:49 AM Kinsey Moore wrote:
>
>
> On 1/19/2022 09:41, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> >
> > On 1/19/2022 09:13, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> >> On 19/01/2022 15:42, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> >>> On 1/18/2022
On 1/19/2022 09:41, Kinsey Moore wrote:
On 1/19/2022 09:13, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 19/01/2022 15:42, Kinsey Moore wrote:
On 1/18/2022 10:23, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 18/01/2022 17:19, Kinsey Moore wrote:
Hardware test results have recently been posted for AArch64.
Closes #4581
It wo
On 19/01/2022 16:41, Kinsey Moore wrote:
ts-performance-no-clock-0 gets test-too-long, but passes with
modified tester timeouts and all the other validation tests pass just
fine.
Great, did the ts-validation-intr test run also? It fails on my Qemu
simulator.
Yes, that test was included in
On 1/19/2022 09:13, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 19/01/2022 15:42, Kinsey Moore wrote:
On 1/18/2022 10:23, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 18/01/2022 17:19, Kinsey Moore wrote:
Hardware test results have recently been posted for AArch64.
Closes #4581
It would be nice if you could run also the new
On 19/01/2022 15:42, Kinsey Moore wrote:
On 1/18/2022 10:23, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 18/01/2022 17:19, Kinsey Moore wrote:
Hardware test results have recently been posted for AArch64.
Closes #4581
It would be nice if you could run also the new validation tests on
this branch:
https://gi
On 1/18/2022 10:23, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 18/01/2022 17:19, Kinsey Moore wrote:
Hardware test results have recently been posted for AArch64.
Closes #4581
It would be nice if you could run also the new validation tests on
this branch:
https://git.rtems.org/sebh/rtems.git/log/?h=validati
Ok to push.
Thank you
Chris
On 19/1/22 3:19 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> Hardware test results have recently been posted for AArch64.
>
> Closes #4581
> ---
> config/rtems-bsps-tiers.ini | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/config/rtems-bsps-tiers.ini b/confi
On 18/01/2022 17:19, Kinsey Moore wrote:
Hardware test results have recently been posted for AArch64.
Closes #4581
It would be nice if you could run also the new validation tests on this
branch:
https://git.rtems.org/sebh/rtems.git/log/?h=validation
--
embedded brains GmbH
Herr Sebastian H
13 matches
Mail list logo
