Re: [PATCH] tester: Make the SIS time limit user configurable

On 6/7/2022 6:00 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > Yes, if tests go wrong the tester can kill a test execution after the > specified > timeout. Killing should be taken as a sign something in the test equipment is broken. > Why do we need this arbitrary SIS -tlim of 400 s? There was a few values and

Re: [newlib] RTEMS: Declare ioctl() also if _KERNEL is defined

On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 1:14 PM Gedare Bloom wrote: > > Why are the includes for stdint and cdefs removed also? > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 8:47 AM Sebastian Huber > wrote: > > > > This fixes the following warning in libbsd: > > > > rtems/blkdev.h:200:10: warning: implicit declaration of function

Re: [newlib] RTEMS: Declare ioctl() also if _KERNEL is defined

Why are the includes for stdint and cdefs removed also? On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 8:47 AM Sebastian Huber wrote: > > This fixes the following warning in libbsd: > > rtems/blkdev.h:200:10: warning: implicit declaration of function 'ioctl'; did > you mean 'ifioctl'?

Re: Integrating the Formal Methods part of Qualification

On Sun, Jul 3, 2022 at 7:49 PM Chris Johns wrote: > > On 2/7/2022 12:59 am, Andrew Butterfield wrote: > > On 1 Jul 2022, at 00:59, Chris Johns > > wrote: > >> > >> On 28/6/2022 11:09 pm, andrew.butterfi...@scss.tcd.ie > >> wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] score: Use RTEMS_SMP in _Thread_Create_idle()

On 06/07/2022 20:19, Gedare Bloom wrote: ok, this changes slightly the order of events in the system state (idle threads are now created in the preceding state, SYSTEM_STATE_BEFORE_INITIALIZATION) but without thinking too hard about it, I think it should be fine. Yes, it doesn't really matter.

Re: [PATCH] score: Use RTEMS_SMP in _Thread_Create_idle()

ok, this changes slightly the order of events in the system state (idle threads are now created in the preceding state, SYSTEM_STATE_BEFORE_INITIALIZATION) but without thinking too hard about it, I think it should be fine. On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 1:06 AM Sebastian Huber wrote: > > Conditional

Re: [PATCH] rtems: Simplify rtems_scheduler_ident()

ok On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 2:19 AM Sebastian Huber wrote: > > Use early returns to simplify rtems_scheduler_ident(). > --- > cpukit/rtems/src/schedulerident.c | 27 +++ > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/cpukit/rtems/src/schedulerident.c

[newlib] RTEMS: Declare ioctl() also if _KERNEL is defined

This fixes the following warning in libbsd: rtems/blkdev.h:200:10: warning: implicit declaration of function 'ioctl'; did you mean 'ifioctl'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] Remove unnecessary includes. --- newlib/libc/sys/rtems/include/sys/ioccom.h | 7 +-- 1 file changed, 1

Re: [PATCH] bsps/arm/stm32f4 Optimize get pin and change from HAL to LL

Hi Duc, As I mentioned in the other patch, please save and consolidate all patch revisions and send an entire new patch set of -v2 patches with all your changes. You can also squash changes into your patch set, for example to address reviewer comments like these. We would like to have a clean set

Re: [PATCH] bsps/arm/stm32f4 Optimize get pin and change from HAL to LL

Hello, On 06.07.22 13:03, Duc Doan wrote: Hello Cedric, Thank you for your feedback. I agree with you that there are places that could be optimized out. Here is a new patch for that. Yes, this looks good, thanks! One more detail and one question follows: static unsigned int

Re: [PATCH] STM32F4 GPIO: Remove old comments

Hi Duc, Save incremental patches like this for a second round of review. We consider each patch set sent as an "atomic unit" for reviewing, but this patch doesn't make any sense unless the previous patches you already sent have been applied. When you do send your next round of patches, be sure

Re: [PATCH] Fix missing cppflags

Hi Duc, Please use a descriptive commit message, see also: https://devel.rtems.org/wiki/Developer/Git#GitCommits We should capture this in the SwE manual probably. For this patch, the commit message should start "build:" because this is a change to spec/build files. You should also mention in the

[PATCH] Fix missing cppflags

Please apply this patch in order to build the BSP. Best, Duc Doan --- spec/build/bsps/arm/grp.yml | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/spec/build/bsps/arm/grp.yml b/spec/build/bsps/arm/grp.yml index b33cc9cdda..d4d259b60c 100644 --- a/spec/build/bsps/arm/grp.yml +++

[PATCH] STM32F4 GPIO: Remove old comments

--- bsps/arm/stm32f4/gpio/gpio.c | 14 -- 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/bsps/arm/stm32f4/gpio/gpio.c b/bsps/arm/stm32f4/gpio/gpio.c index b632236d8d..8e3f7c7131 100644 --- a/bsps/arm/stm32f4/gpio/gpio.c +++ b/bsps/arm/stm32f4/gpio/gpio.c @@ -330,11 +330,6 @@

[PATCH] bsps/arm/stm32f4 Optimize get pin and change from HAL to LL

Hello Cedric, Thank you for your feedback. I agree with you that there are places that could be optimized out. Here is a new patch for that. Best, Duc Doan --- bsps/arm/stm32f4/gpio/gpio.c | 87 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-) diff

Re: [PATCH] tester: Make the SIS time limit user configurable

On 06/07/2022 09:38, Chris Johns wrote: On 6/7/2022 4:26 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 06/07/2022 01:51, chr...@rtems.org wrote: +# +# Timeout option. This is the default for timeout for the CPU realtime +# clock + +%ifn %{defined sis_time_limit} + %define sis_time_limit -tlim 400 s +%endif

Re: [PATCH] tester: Make the SIS time limit user configurable

On 6/7/2022 4:26 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 06/07/2022 01:51, chr...@rtems.org wrote: >> +# >> +# Timeout option. This is the default for timeout for the CPU realtime >> +# clock >> + >> +%ifn %{defined sis_time_limit} >> + %define sis_time_limit -tlim 400 s >> +%endif > > Making this

Re: [PATCH] tester: Make the SIS time limit user configurable

On 06/07/2022 01:51, chr...@rtems.org wrote: +# +# Timeout option. This is the default for timeout for the CPU realtime +# clock + +%ifn %{defined sis_time_limit} + %define sis_time_limit -tlim 400 s +%endif Making this configurable is good, but why do you impose a limit by default? Why can't