Re: [PATCH] build: Add optional RTEMS_VERSION_VC_KEY

On 27/7/2023 3:59 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 27.07.23 06:36, Chris Johns wrote: >> >> On 26/7/2023 4:54 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> On 26.07.23 08:20, Chris Johns wrote: On 26/7/2023 3:44 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 26.07.23 06:58, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> On 26.07.23

Re: No RTEMS documentation updates on the web site?

On 27/7/2023 4:30 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > Hello, > > it seems the RTEMS documentation on the web site is from 24th of January: > > https://docs.rtems.org/ > Yeah. I was waiting for the updates to service2.rtems.org to be done before sorting it out but that work was delayed because of the

Re: Pushing to 6.1

On 28/7/2023 5:28 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 2:14 PM Karel Gardas wrote: > >    Hello, > > do we have any plan with timeline? I think to see some roadmap would be > greatly appreciated on all sides, wouldn't it? > > People starting asking me this about two

Re: [PATCH rtems 2/3] confdefs: Add configure macro for libi2c

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 12:23 AM Sebastian Huber wrote: > > > > On 25.07.23 04:31, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 10:09 AM Sebastian Huber > > wrote: > >> On 20.07.23 03:10, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: > >>> Add CONFIGURE_APPLICATION_NEEDS_LIBI2C_DRIVER define > >> Do

Re: [PATCH series for review] STM32 H7 HAL update.

On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 9:31 AM Karel Gardas wrote: > >Folks, > > I'd like to propose and perform STM32 H7 HAL code update. Currently this > HAL code is part of RTEMS source tree located inside bsps/arm/stm32h7 > subdirectory. > > As the patches are too big to be sent to the mailing list,

Re: Pushing to 6.1

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 2:14 PM Karel Gardas wrote: > >Hello, > > do we have any plan with timeline? I think to see some roadmap would be > greatly appreciated on all sides, wouldn't it? > People starting asking me this about two years ago. Everytime I have given a time, it has been ignored

Re: Pushing to 6.1

Hello, do we have any plan with timeline? I think to see some roadmap would be greatly appreciated on all sides, wouldn't it? Thanks! Karel On 7/27/23 19:56, Joel Sherrill wrote: Hi The number of tickets is unfortunately not declining as I would like. This is in spite of us actually

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Revert CAN API

Thanks. I checked these in with one little change for a missed line in a spec file. On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 12:49 PM Joel Sherrill wrote: > > OK to revert. I didn't catch that it was 3 commits to revert cleanly. > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 1:28 PM Gedare Bloom wrote: >> >> The CAN API is not

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Revert CAN API

OK to revert. I didn't catch that it was 3 commits to revert cleanly. On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 1:28 PM Gedare Bloom wrote: > The CAN API is not mature enough for a release. This patch set > reverts it. See #4803. > > I expect to revisit this during the 7 development cycle. > > Gedare Bloom (3):

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Revert "build: Fix copyright statement format"

I'm just reverting this so I can delete the file cleanly in patch 3/3. On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 12:29 PM Joel Sherrill wrote: > > Ok. Are there others like this? > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 1:28 PM Gedare Bloom wrote: >> >> This reverts commit 5b124432e27dd91f66f71464b586cc369e15ec99. >> --- >>

Re: Pushing to 6.1

I'm bumping the tickets related to non-functional changes (style, copyright line / URLs, and third party tracking) until 7. I'd rather not hold up the release on their account, although I'm getting close it will take awhile yet to get everything in good order. On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 11:56 AM

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Revert "build: Fix copyright statement format"

Ok. Are there others like this? On Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 1:28 PM Gedare Bloom wrote: > This reverts commit 5b124432e27dd91f66f71464b586cc369e15ec99. > --- > spec/build/testsuites/libtests/can01.yml | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git

[PATCH 1/3] Revert "cpukit/dev/can: Resolve warnings in 64bit builds"

This reverts commit 4c0a2d47e1dce0923f270d0206d0cb93d0d58451. --- cpukit/dev/can/can.c | 16 +++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/cpukit/dev/can/can.c b/cpukit/dev/can/can.c index 9f3fe0db98..2e6d5df65b 100644 --- a/cpukit/dev/can/can.c +++

[PATCH 3/3] Revert "cpukit/dev/can: Added CAN support"

This reverts commit cd91b37dce728b372f164355719a4e601e12e7b3. Closes #4803. --- cpukit/dev/can/can.c | 505 --- cpukit/include/dev/can/can-msg.h | 105 - cpukit/include/dev/can/can.h | 284 -

[PATCH 2/3] Revert "build: Fix copyright statement format"

This reverts commit 5b124432e27dd91f66f71464b586cc369e15ec99. --- spec/build/testsuites/libtests/can01.yml | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/spec/build/testsuites/libtests/can01.yml b/spec/build/testsuites/libtests/can01.yml index 7597b1fffd..b5c1e1ae5c 100644

[PATCH 0/3] Revert CAN API

The CAN API is not mature enough for a release. This patch set reverts it. See #4803. I expect to revisit this during the 7 development cycle. Gedare Bloom (3): Revert "cpukit/dev/can: Resolve warnings in 64bit builds" Revert "build: Fix copyright statement format" Revert "cpukit/dev/can:

Re: [PATCH] eng: add Apache License 2.0 restriction

This looks fine to me. On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 10:29 AM Karel Gardas wrote: > > --- > eng/license-requirements.rst | 26 +- > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/eng/license-requirements.rst b/eng/license-requirements.rst > index

Pushing to 6.1

Hi The number of tickets is unfortunately not declining as I would like. This is in spite of us actually closing some previous tickets. + 32 in progress + 10 new I do not know if the milestone for any of these can be changed but we need to work on this. Please look through the tickets and see

Re: [PATCH] doxygen: Replace main page

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 12:52 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > > On 27.07.23 02:13, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 12:50 AM Sebastian Huber > > > > wrote: > > > > Replace the main page

Re: style patches - discuss

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 1:13 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > > On 26.07.23 17:17, Gedare Bloom wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 11:15 PM Sebastian Huber > > wrote: > >> > >> On 25.07.23 23:41, Gedare Bloom wrote: > >>> I have sent two initial patches to begin

[PATCH] 6: Use GCC 13.2

Prepare for RTEMS 6.1 release. Update #4921. --- rtems/config/6/rtems-default.bset | 2 +- .../tools/rtems-gcc-13.2-newlib-head.cfg | 20 +++ 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 rtems/config/tools/rtems-gcc-13.2-newlib-head.cfg

No RTEMS documentation updates on the web site?

Hello, it seems the RTEMS documentation on the web site is from 24th of January: https://docs.rtems.org/ -- embedded brains GmbH Herr Sebastian HUBER Dornierstr. 4 82178 Puchheim Germany email: sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 16 fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08

Re: style patches - discuss

On 26.07.23 17:17, Gedare Bloom wrote: On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 11:15 PM Sebastian Huber wrote: On 25.07.23 23:41, Gedare Bloom wrote: I have sent two initial patches to begin the style reformat. The clang-format file is not quite 100%, and it's also not usable by anyone else (as I wait for

Re: [PATCH] bsps/stm32h7: Allow use of max temp range

Hello, On 26.07.23 22:48, Kinsey Moore wrote: This adds an option to allow operation of the CPU at its maximum temperature range of 125F by reducing the CPU clock to 400MHz instead of the 105F limit imposed by the default 480MHz CPU clock. This tradeoff is detailed in table 122 in section 7.3.1

Re: [PATCH] build: Add optional RTEMS_VERSION_VC_KEY

On 27.07.23 06:36, Chris Johns wrote: On 26/7/2023 4:54 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 26.07.23 08:20, Chris Johns wrote: On 26/7/2023 3:44 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 26.07.23 06:58, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 26.07.23 00:08, Chris Johns wrote: On 26/7/2023 4:27 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: