Change the development suggestion for booting the R5 since the R5 u-boot
is only minimally functional without significant development. This also
adds caveats when booting the R5 cores from the A53.
---
user/bsps/arm/xilinx-zynqmp-rpu.rst | 14 --
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2
The Pynq is a low cost Zynq board I have wanted to have support for.
http://www.pynq.io/board.html
Basic support should be a matter of tweaking the settings and adding a bsp
variant
On Sat, Feb 25, 2023, 10:21 AM Alan Cudmore wrote:
> Improving Raspberry Pi 4 support would be a great GSOC proj
Improving Raspberry Pi 4 support would be a great GSOC project. Right now
the Beagleboard is my default for a low cost network enabled RTEMS board.
But a Pi4 with network and SMP support would be a great board to learn
RTEMS. Even better if the supply problems are addressed this year. In
addition t
That's all great information to include in the ticket and/or the Users
Guide.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023, 7:44 AM Noor Aman wrote:
> I booted freeBSD on the Raspberry pi, I was able to confirm that it used
> genet driver together with miibus for the NIC. This is further confirmed
> with the FreeBSD
I booted freeBSD on the Raspberry pi, I was able to confirm that it used
genet driver together with miibus for the NIC. This is further confirmed
with the FreeBSD manual page.
https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=genet
One more thing to follow is that i noticed that FreeBSD is using PSCI, so
On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 11:09 AM Noor Aman wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
> Last year I helped with the porting of RTEMS-aarch64 for Raspberry Pi 4B
> with Kinsey, Alan and Hesham. I'm looking forward to continuing my project
> further. As of now, I have 2 projects in my mind.
>
Every GSoC project sho
Hey everyone,
Last year I helped with the porting of RTEMS-aarch64 for Raspberry Pi 4B
with Kinsey, Alan and Hesham. I'm looking forward to continuing my project
further. As of now, I have 2 projects in my mind.
1. Bringing in multicore support for the BSP.
This can be achieved by one of the 2 met
Hello developers,
I was actually looking for feedback on your feedback on project
<https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3892> #3892. I made the draft proposal
available here
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_G0-q7J2b-5kJzZGI32a-KpC6gMzJ1FcNFFTdMCw1c4/edit>,
Dr. Gedare has given me s
I am drafting a proposal for this, Will submit it as soon as possible,
Possibly by tomorrow. I am getting an idea and I will try to match the
ticket deliverables.
Best Regards
Anmol
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 12:39 AM Amar Takhar wrote:
> On 2020-02-28 12:39 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >
> > We
On 2020-02-29 04:18, Amar Takhar wrote:
On 2020-02-28 09:25 -0700, Gedare Bloom wrote:
If there is enough work, and the work can be suitably identified, then
it can also be a possible GSoC. There are also other possibilities to
improve our existing Python code bases to adhere to some proposed
On 2020-02-28 12:39 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> We can't blanket upgrade tools to Python 3. The only thing I think we agreed
> when this was recently discussed is that we have categories of tools in Python
> and some have to be compatible with Python 2 and 3.
I wasn't suggesting that. I said
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:18 AM Amar Takhar wrote:
> On 2020-02-28 09:25 -0700, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> > >
> > If there is enough work, and the work can be suitably identified, then
> > it can also be a possible GSoC. There are also other possibilities to
> > improve our existing Python code base
On 2020-02-28 09:25 -0700, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> >
> If there is enough work, and the work can be suitably identified, then
> it can also be a possible GSoC. There are also other possibilities to
> improve our existing Python code bases to adhere to some proposed
> Python coding conventions, which
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:10 AM Christian Mauderer
wrote:
>
> Hello Anmol,
>
> On 28/02/2020 10:49, Anmol Mishra wrote:
> > I can see python2 code being used. And as of 2020 python2 has been
> > depreciated but I assume everyone is aware of that. Is there any active
> > plan to shift the codebase.
Hello Anmol,
On 28/02/2020 10:49, Anmol Mishra wrote:
> I can see python2 code being used. And as of 2020 python2 has been
> depreciated but I assume everyone is aware of that. Is there any active
> plan to shift the codebase. I am open to discussion for this.
We have the problem that some long
I can see python2 code being used. And as of 2020 python2 has been
depreciated but I assume everyone is aware of that. Is there any active
plan to shift the codebase. I am open to discussion for this.
Regards
Anmol
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
-- Original --
From: "Chris Johns"___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 10/2/20 12:14 pm, jameszxj wrote:
> The caches size(RTEMS_RTL_ELF_SYMBOL_CACHE ...) now are just define in
> rtl.c.
Yes.
> One of our project should increase the cache size, so I have to modify the
> kernel source file directly. I think if the cache size can be redefined maybe
> friendly.
Hi
The caches size(RTEMS_RTL_ELF_SYMBOL_CACHE ...) now are just
define in rtl.c. One of our project should increase the cache size, so I have
to modify the
kernel source file directly. I think if the cache size can be redefined maybe
friendly.
thanks. __
oject.
Gedare
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Sichen Zhao wrote:
> Strictly speaking it's a suggestion not a bug, and no ticket about it.
>
> I think RTEMS-libbsd can add the simplebus or other FreeBSD bus, not only
> the nexus bus. It may good at RTEMS-lib
On 16/05/17 03:51, Sichen Zhao wrote:
Strictly speaking it's a suggestion not a bug, and no ticket about it.
I think RTEMS-libbsd can add the simplebus or other FreeBSD bus, not
only the nexus bus. It may good at RTEMS-libbsd driver development.
simplebus is already supported.
--
Seba
Strictly speaking it's a suggestion not a bug, and no ticket about it.
<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
I think RTEMS-libbsd can add the simplebus or other FreeBSD bus, not only the
nexus bus. It may good at RTEMS-libbsd driver development.
___
Which bug / ticket number?
Have you built and run a libbsd test?
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Sichen Zhao wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> I am GSOC 2017 student Sichen Zhao
>
> I wanna ask whether the RTEMS-libbsd Bug is ok? And strictly speaking it's a
> sugge
Hi all,
I am GSOC 2017 student Sichen Zhao
I wanna ask whether the RTEMS-libbsd Bug is ok? And strictly speaking it's a
suggestion not a bug.
Best Regards
Sichen Zhao
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/lis
Hi GSOC'17 aspirants,
Please permit other guys to provide suggestion on your proposals.
Regards,
PV
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
---
cpukit/libdl/rtl-mdreloc-m32r.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/cpukit/libdl/rtl-mdreloc-m32r.c b/cpukit/libdl/rtl-mdreloc-m32r.c
index de32f06..265e9cb 100644
--- a/cpukit/libdl/rtl-mdreloc-m32r.c
+++ b/cpukit/libdl/rtl-mdreloc-m32r.c
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ rtem
26 matches
Mail list logo
