[PATCH 2/2] score: Remove CPU port atomic operations API

2023-05-25 Thread Sebastian Huber
Use the C/C++ standard API directly. --- cpukit/include/rtems/score/atomic.h| 962 ++-- cpukit/include/rtems/score/cpuatomic.h | 986 - 2 files changed, 888 insertions(+), 1060 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 cpukit/include/rtems/score/cpuatomic.h

[PATCH 1/2] score: Remove CPU port specific cpuatomic.h

2023-05-25 Thread Sebastian Huber
All CPU ports used the same header file to provide the atomic operations. Remove the header file indirection. --- .../score/{cpustdatomic.h => cpuatomic.h} | 0 .../aarch64/include/rtems/score/cpuatomic.h | 42 --- .../cpu/arm/include/rtems/score/cpuatomic.h | 33 ---

[PATCH] termios: Add

2023-05-25 Thread Sebastian Huber
Add which does not depend on to provide rtems_termios_device_context and rtems_termios_device_handler. For polled serial device drivers, this removes a header file dependency to the full file system support. --- bsps/arm/xilinx-zynq/console/console-init.c | 1 + bsps/include/dev/serial/zynq-ua

Re: [PATCH] score: Unify

2023-05-25 Thread Chris Johns
On 26/5/2023 1:38 pm, Andy wrote: > > If you need my reply, I am ok to switch to BSD-2-Clause license.  > Thank you and thank you for letting us know. :) Chris ___ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [PATCH] score: Unify

2023-05-25 Thread Chris Johns
On 25/5/2023 3:54 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 25.05.23 03:40, Kinsey Moore wrote:> Is there any reason this isn't just > being moved to a shared directory if >> they're all being made identical? > > Initially, they were all identical. We already have a shared implementation > > https://git.rt

Re: [PATCHv2 rtems_waf] Allow vendor field in toolchain target triplet

2023-05-25 Thread Chris Johns
On 25/5/2023 6:53 pm, martinerikwerner@gmail.com wrote: > While poking around some more, it seems like there's more places in > this file where assumptions of no vendor in the triplet might come into > play (but did not affect my use of it), if I'm reading it correctly?: > > 227 conf.e

Re: [PATCHv2 rtems_waf] Allow vendor field in toolchain target triplet

2023-05-25 Thread martinerikwerner . aac
While poking around some more, it seems like there's more places in this file where assumptions of no vendor in the triplet might come into play (but did not affect my use of it), if I'm reading it correctly?: 227 conf.env.ARCH_BSP = '%s/%s' % (arch.split('-')[0], bsp) 232 conf.en

Re: Discussion: How to handle HALs, SDKs and libraries

2023-05-25 Thread Christian MAUDERER
On 2023-05-25 01:57, Chris Johns wrote: On 24/5/2023 5:07 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote: Hello Chris, On 2023-05-24 03:44, Chris Johns wrote: Hi Christian, Thanks for raising this topic. It is a tough one. On 24/5/2023 12:11 am, Kinsey Moore wrote: On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 2:26 AM Christian M