Hi Simon,
Yes, the link is established. I monitor the TLK110 constantly and use the
following snippit to set LwIP up or down. Just out of curiosity, do you
recall where you've seen TI be sad about the TLK110? It's been OK for me so
far. I am having a new issue with it where the link comes up and t
On 27.02.2018 18:41, Chris Seto wrote:
Oh, one thing to note:
I an using no OS. There are no threads at all other than main
In that case, are you sure the link got established? If I remember
correctly, TI support itself is not too fond of the TLK110?
If the link *got* established (i.e. no P
On 27.02.2018 16:32, Yacob Hassidim wrote:
Hello,
I want to wait till at least 3 bytes were received by TCP.
How the TCP minimum received bytes for callback is configured?
That's not supported. You'll have to queue the rx pbufs yourself in your
recv callback.
Simon
__
Oh, one thing to note:
I an using no OS. There are no threads at all other than main
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:39 AM, goldsimon wrote:
>
>
> Chris Seto wrote:
> >I have a custom board with an STM32F4, and a TLK110 running LwIP 2.0.3.
> >The
> >board works great when it gets, an address, and I
Chris Seto wrote:
>I have a custom board with an STM32F4, and a TLK110 running LwIP 2.0.3.
>The
>board works great when it gets, an address, and I can freely exchange
>data
>with a socket server.
>
>On board bootup, I set the IP to 0 and then use dhcp_start() to start
>DHCP.
>When the code sees t
I have a custom board with an STM32F4, and a TLK110 running LwIP 2.0.3. The
board works great when it gets, an address, and I can freely exchange data
with a socket server.
On board bootup, I set the IP to 0 and then use dhcp_start() to start DHCP.
When the code sees that the IP is no longer just
If you have 128GB of RAM (wow!!!), it might be best to turn off LwIP's
heap and pool and just use stdc malloc. Then you won't be limited by
any pool or heap defines in LwIP. See the below options:
/**
* MEM_LIBC_MALLOC==1: Use malloc/free/realloc provided by your C-library
* instead of the
Hello,
I want to wait till at least 3 bytes were received by TCP.
How the TCP minimum received bytes for callback is configured?
Yacob Hassidim,
___
lwip-users mailing list
lwip-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo
The error is cased by a failed call to memp_malloc(MEMP_TCP_SEG). So
you're running out of "simultaneously queued TCP segments". Try
increasing MEMP_NUM_TCP_SEG. Default is 16. Also check the statistics
more closely. After the protocol related block use pasted the TCP part
from a memory and memory
I have 128 gig RAM , I feel i have been restricted by some macro.
tcp_write:779 tcp_write: 0 (with mem err)
tcp_create_segment:192 tcp_create_segment: no memory.
tcp_write:779 tcp_write: 0 (with mem err)
tcp_create_segment:192 tcp_create_segment: no memory.
tcp_write:779 tcp_write: 0 (with mem err
On 27.02.2018 14:54, Anil kumar wrote:
[...]
> memerr: 20829
[...]
You have memory (RAM) problems.
Jan
___
lwip-users mailing list
lwip-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Below is the error i received for each session:
Could you please suggest what macros i should look into
TCP
xmit: 27703
recv: 1617
fw: 0
drop: 1180
chkerr: 0
lenerr: 0
memerr: 20829
rterr: 0
proterr: 1180
opterr: 0
Anil kumar wrote:
> what is the maximum TCP Session limit tested.
None that I know of. But I'd expect things to get slow, eventually...
> I am trying to configure 2000 LDP Session i am seeing issues (TCP Errors)
>
> What would be suggested macro values to be tuned in opt.h such that i can
> sc
hi,
what is the maximum TCP Session limit tested.
I am trying to configure 2000 LDP Session i am seeing issues (TCP Errors)
What would be suggested macro values to be tuned in opt.h such that i can
scale TCP Sessions.
I have tested 1000 TCP sessions , it appears to be ok.
--
With Regards
Anil
Giuseppe Modugno wrote:
> I'm thinking if it's better to set MEMP_MEM_MALLOC or not in my application.
You partly wrote it, it's fast/predictable but larger (larger because ram is
dedicated to a pool)
against slower/fragmentable but potentially smaller (smaller because ram can be
used for everyt
Il 27/02/2018 13:08, Giuseppe Modugno ha scritto:
I'm thinking if it's better to set MEMP_MEM_MALLOC or not in my
application. I'm working with MEMP_MEM_MALLOC=1 (I started from an
example) and it works. However I'm not sure it's the best choice for me.
So what are the arguments for and agai
I'm thinking if it's better to set MEMP_MEM_MALLOC or not in my
application. I'm working with MEMP_MEM_MALLOC=1 (I started from an
example) and it works. However I'm not sure it's the best choice for me.
So what are the arguments for and against MEMP_MEM_MALLOC?
This is what I have understood:
Il 27/02/2018 06:39, Simon Goldschmidt ha scritto:
Giuseppe Modugno wrote:
#ifndef HTTP_IS_DATA_VOLATILE
#if LWIP_HTTPD_SSI
/* Copy for SSI files, no copy for non-SSI files */
#define HTTP_IS_DATA_VOLATILE(hs) ((hs)->ssi ? TCP_WRITE_FLAG_COPY : 0)
#else /* LWIP_HTTPD_SSI */
/** Default: don't
18 matches
Mail list logo
