Hi Chris
Yes, I am very interested.
I guess you have interrupts working there?
Do you mind your code or work based on it to end up under RTEMS licence on
the git repository?
Thanks
2014-09-19 6:00 GMT+02:00 Chris Nott :
> Hi, I was fiddling with this platform and got as far as a project
> imp
On September 19, 2014 12:00:26 AM CDT, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>On 18/09/14 23:47, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Is it possible to move all platforms to GCC 4.9.x?
>>
>> If not, which ones have issues and do these issues
>> have GCC PRs filed?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
>The PowerPC build issues have
On 08/07/14 22:52, Joel Sherrill wrote:
There was a lot of duplication between the discipline subroutines.
With the transition to RBTrees for priority discipline, there were
only a few lines of source code manipulating the data structure
for FIFO and priority. Thus is made sense to fold these bac
On September 19, 2014 7:28:36 AM CDT, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>On 08/07/14 22:52, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> There was a lot of duplication between the discipline subroutines.
>> With the transition to RBTrees for priority discipline, there were
>> only a few lines of source code manipulating the d
Since or1k architecture stack grows down, threads should be initialized
with high stack addresses instead of lower ones. This is done in
_CPU_Context_Initialize function.
---
cpukit/score/cpu/or1k/or1k-context-initialize.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cp
Hi,
I run another test for or1ksim BSP yesterday via RTEMS Tester and got the
following results:
Passed: 432
Failed: 4
Timeouts: 67
Invalid:0
Total:503
Average test time: 0:00:23.380789
Testing time : 3:16:00.537058
However, when I tested failures and timeouts separately, most
Interrupts working yes.
No I don't mind. It's a bit of a mess though, I was in the process of doing
another cleaner USB device implementation for BeagleBone Black, which I was
then going to backport to STM32F4 and eventually maybe work towards some
sort of general RTEMS USB device framework.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Chris Nott wrote:
> Interrupts working yes.
>
> No I don't mind. It's a bit of a mess though, I was in the process of doing
> another cleaner USB device implementation for BeagleBone Black, which I was
> then going to backport to STM32F4 and eventually maybe work
2014-09-19 18:26 GMT+02:00 Chris Nott :
> Interrupts working yes.
>
> No I don't mind. It's a bit of a mess though, I was in the process of
> doing another cleaner USB device implementation for BeagleBone Black, which
> I was then going to backport to STM32F4 and eventually maybe work towards
>
2014-09-19 18:37 GMT+02:00 Gedare Bloom :
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Chris Nott wrote:
> > Interrupts working yes.
> >
> > No I don't mind. It's a bit of a mess though, I was in the process of
> doing
> > another cleaner USB device implementation for BeagleBone Black, which I
> was
> > t
Implement uart_read_polled which is needed for any application that
reads input from users. It works fine with pppd, capture, and all
termios tests.
---
c/src/lib/libbsp/or1k/or1ksim/console/uart.c | 13 +++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/c/src/lib/libbsp/
I have used the BSD stack with RTEMS on a project with Chris J. It is fine
for some uses but it is very heavyweight for implementing just a device on
small embedded target.
Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com
On 19 September 2014 09:37:35 Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Fri, Sep
There is a port of LWIP discussed recently on the list which would be very
appropriate on lower memory targets.
On September 19, 2014 9:21:02 PM CDT, Chris Nott wrote:
>I have used the BSD stack with RTEMS on a project with Chris J. It is
>fine
>for some uses but it is very heavyweight for impl
On good, thanks. I was hoping to work up to putting a tcpip stack on one of
our STM32F4 boards with ethernet. I thought the BSD stack was the only
option but LWIP would be ideal.
Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com
On 19 September 2014 19:23:33 Joel Sherrill wrote:
There
On 19/09/2014 9:17 pm, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On September 19, 2014 12:00:26 AM CDT, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
On 18/09/14 23:47, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi
Is it possible to move all platforms to GCC 4.9.x?
If not, which ones have issues and do these issues
have GCC PRs filed?
Thanks.
The Po
On 20/09/2014 12:56 am, Hesham Moustafa wrote:
However, when I tested failures and timeouts separately, most of them
work on QEMU, the others miss the trailing end-of-test line, which
exists when I run them on or1ksim simulator.
How many cores do you have and what host OS ? I assume this is not
On Sep 20, 2014 6:44 AM, "Chris Johns" wrote:
>
> On 20/09/2014 12:56 am, Hesham Moustafa wrote:
>>
>> However, when I tested failures and timeouts separately, most of them
>> work on QEMU, the others miss the trailing end-of-test line, which
>> exists when I run them on or1ksim simulator.
>
>
> H
On 20/09/2014 3:13 pm, Hesham Moustafa wrote:
I have 4 physical cores, and I usually run make with J8. My host OS is
fedora 20.
Try with --jobs=4 and see if you get any time outs. Anything else
running at the same time may effect the result.
Chris
18 matches
Mail list logo
