Date   
Zephyr 2.2.0-rc1 has been tagged

Johan Hedberg
 

Hi Zephyr developers,

The the first Zephyr 2.2 release candidate (v2.2.0-rc1) has been tagged.

All required features scheduled for the 2.2 release are now merged into master. As of now we are in the stabilization phase for the 2.2 release; the merge window is closed for new features and enhancements, and will remain closed until the release date. We will also start working on filling in the existing skeleton for the release notes.

During the stabilization period only bug-fix, documentation, and stabilization-related patches may be merged to master. Additional features or enhancements for the 2.2 release will require approval by TSC.

As we need to reduce bug counts for the release, you are all encouraged to submit PRs that close existing bug reports, and to help reviewing such PRs submitted by other contributors or maintainers.

Testing Zephyr master branch during the stabilisation phase is also requested; please, test the code base and file bug reports so they can be addressed before the release deadline.

The full release log can be found here: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/releases/tag/v2.2.0-rc1

More details about Zephyr releases is found here: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/wiki/Program-Management

The final release is tentatively scheduled for February 28th.

Thank you to everybody who contributed to this release!

Johan

West 0.7.0 released, requires manual intervention on Ubuntu

Bolivar, Marti
 

Hello,

West 0.7.0 has been released. The main new feature since 0.6.x is the
addition of "manifest imports", which let you pull in west.yml files
from elsewhere into your own manifest file.

You can upgrade in the usual ways:

pip3 install west==0.7.0 # Windows and macOS
pip3 install --user west==0.7.0 # Linux

Please note that there is a problem with the upgrade on the version of
pip3 which ships with Ubuntu 18.04. Other Linux distributions, macOS,
and Windows are all upgrading successfully.

On Ubuntu only, you will need to choose from one of the following
workarounds to upgrade west:

1. Remove the old west before upgrading, like this:

$ pip3 show west | grep Location: | cut -f 2 -d ' '
/home/foo/.local/lib/python3.6/site-packages
$ rm -r /home/foo/.local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/west
$ pip3 install --user west==0.7.0

2. Install west in a virtual environment using a more recent
version of pip3, e.g. using the venv module:

https://docs.python.org/3/library/venv.html

Further details in this issue:

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/west/issues/373

And in particular, this comment:

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/west/issues/373#issuecomment-583489272

Thanks,
Marti

Re: clang toolchain doesn't failing to compile properly

Sigvart Hovland
 

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/blob/e3d39032eb91973c6fc696696d442fa0f61f92c4/arch/arm/core/aarch32/thread.c#L449

Pretty sure it was around here. Could be that I'm wrong(haven't found the code that worked I think I deleted the branch) where start_of_main_stack would disappear when I used Clang in combination with GNU tools.
Or it was one of _current = main_thread; since it worked when you turned of multi-threading.

My biggest gut feeling is that it is start_of_main_stack since it only has assignments and would be viewed from the compiler as never used if it does not look at the assembly.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 4:58 PM
To: Hovland, Sigvart <@siho>
Cc: akira.kato@...; devel@...
Subject: Re: [Zephyr-devel] clang toolchain doesn't failing to compile properly

Sigvart,

I’d really appreciate if you could try and remember where you might have added that print to deal with the in-line asm getting optimized away.

- k

On Jan 31, 2020, at 5:54 AM, Sigvart Hovland <@siho> wrote:

What target are you trying to compile for?

From the stack overflow thread I find
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

Then some references to the Nordic HAL. So I’m just going to assume you are trying to target nrf52xx so what should be noted is that you can’t use the LLVM linker also I think you need to use the arm-none-eabi assembler also if you are targeting an ARM cortex-m platform.

I got it to compile with LLVM and GCC/GNU assembler/linker. You will have to add an config in the /home/zephyrproject/modules/hal/nordic/nrfx/mdk/compiler_abstraction.h:66 that you are using Clang (ARMCC > 6 is an ARM version of Clang) I think it’s something like __CLANG or it could be __llvm__ or __clang__.

Some discussion on it here:

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/19120

Some of the changes are added here
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/19218

Based on https://github.com/galak/zephyr/tree/llvm I believe.

I don’t have my old branch where I got it to build unfortunately so I don’t have anything direct to link too but was able to build and run hello world with clang + arm-none-eabi linker and assembler. Also I don’t remember the exact point in the code where I had to add a print for it to work. There was some in-line assembly which was optimized out by clang if it was not used so I added a print and it would work. Sorry for not being very helpful thought I would just give you some information.


From: devel@... <devel@...> On
Behalf Of Akira Kato via Lists.Zephyrproject.Org
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 7:13 PM
To: devel@...
Cc: devel@...
Subject: [Zephyr-devel] clang toolchain doesn't failing to compile
properly

Hi,
I don't know if this is the proper place to ask technical question
about zephyr but I have tried stackoverflow and started github issue
with no help. I am new to zephyr so I followed the getting started
guide. Here's the post I made:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59976179/zephyr-error-using-llvm-w
orks-fine-with-default-toolchain The problem is described there with
the error logs.
Thanks,
Akira

Re: clang toolchain doesn't failing to compile properly

Kumar Gala
 

Sigvart,

I’d really appreciate if you could try and remember where you might have added that print to deal with the in-line asm getting optimized away.

- k

On Jan 31, 2020, at 5:54 AM, Sigvart Hovland <@siho> wrote:

What target are you trying to compile for?

From the stack overflow thread I find
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

Then some references to the Nordic HAL. So I’m just going to assume you are trying to target nrf52xx so what should be noted is that you can’t use the LLVM linker also I think you need to use the arm-none-eabi assembler also if you are targeting an ARM cortex-m platform.

I got it to compile with LLVM and GCC/GNU assembler/linker. You will have to add an config in the /home/zephyrproject/modules/hal/nordic/nrfx/mdk/compiler_abstraction.h:66 that you are using Clang (ARMCC > 6 is an ARM version of Clang) I think it’s something like __CLANG or it could be __llvm__ or __clang__.

Some discussion on it here:

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/19120

Some of the changes are added here
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/19218

Based on https://github.com/galak/zephyr/tree/llvm I believe.

I don’t have my old branch where I got it to build unfortunately so I don’t have anything direct to link too but was able to build and run hello world with clang + arm-none-eabi linker and assembler. Also I don’t remember the exact point in the code where I had to add a print for it to work. There was some in-line assembly which was optimized out by clang if it was not used so I added a print and it would work. Sorry for not being very helpful thought I would just give you some information.


From: devel@... <devel@...> On Behalf Of Akira Kato via Lists.Zephyrproject.Org
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 7:13 PM
To: devel@...
Cc: devel@...
Subject: [Zephyr-devel] clang toolchain doesn't failing to compile properly

Hi,
I don't know if this is the proper place to ask technical question about zephyr but I have tried stackoverflow and started github issue with no help. I am new to zephyr so I followed the getting started guide. Here's the post I made: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59976179/zephyr-error-using-llvm-works-fine-with-default-toolchain
The problem is described there with the error logs.
Thanks,
Akira

Upcoming Event: Zephyr Project: Dev Meeting - Thu, 02/06/2020 8:00am-9:00am, Please RSVP #cal-reminder

devel@lists.zephyrproject.org Calendar <devel@...>
 

Reminder: Zephyr Project: Dev Meeting

When: Thursday, 6 February 2020, 8:00am to 9:00am, (GMT-08:00) America/Los Angeles

Where:https://zoom.us/j/993312203

An RSVP is requested. Click here to RSVP

Organizer: devel@...

Description: Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/993312203

One tap mobile
+16699006833,,993312203# US (San Jose)
+16465588656,,993312203# US (New York)

Dial by your location
        +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
        +1 877 369 0926 US Toll-free
        +1 855 880 1246 US Toll-free
Meeting ID: 993 312 203
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ankEMRagf

Event: Zephyr Toolchain Working Group #cal-invite

devel@lists.zephyrproject.org Calendar <devel@...>
 

Zephyr Toolchain Working Group

When:
Thursday, 20 February 2020
9:00am to 10:00am
(UTC-06:00) America/Chicago
Repeats: Every 2 weeks on Thursday, through Thursday, 23 July 2020

Where:
https://zoom.us/j/967549258

Organizer: Maureen Helm

Description:

Zephyr Working Group is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic:  Zephyr Toolchain Working Group
Time: Feb 20, 2020 09:00 AM Central Time (US and Canada)
        Every 2 weeks on Thu, until Jul 23, 2020, 12 occurrence(s)
        Feb 20, 2020 09:00 AM
        Mar 5, 2020 09:00 AM
        Mar 19, 2020 09:00 AM
        Apr 2, 2020 09:00 AM
        Apr 16, 2020 09:00 AM
        Apr 30, 2020 09:00 AM
        May 14, 2020 09:00 AM
        May 28, 2020 09:00 AM
        Jun 11, 2020 09:00 AM
        Jun 25, 2020 09:00 AM
        Jul 9, 2020 09:00 AM
        Jul 23, 2020 09:00 AM
Please download and import the following iCalendar (.ics) files to your calendar system.
Weekly: https://zoom.us/meeting/tJIqcu2hrD4id0z59MlGQgtjfduqRH_iTA/ics?icsToken=98tyKuCuqT4uE9aQuF39e7cqA97lbN-1i3UesPYEsRPCMidHaAXyI_NwGo12JPmB

Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/967549258

Meeting ID: 967 549 258

One tap mobile
+16699006833,,967549258# US (San Jose)
+16465588656,,967549258# US (New York)

Dial by your location
        +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
        855 880 1246 US Toll-free
        877 369 0926 US Toll-free
        +1 647 558 0588 Canada
        855 703 8985 Canada Toll-free
Meeting ID: 967 549 258
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/abfRKTHWtN

add pyocd user scripy cause pylint issue

FrankLi
 

Hi guys,
    Since to flash on mm_swiftio is not supported by pyocd, I want to override the flash algorithm for an external flash by using user script.
    The user script use pyocd global "target" cause pylint issue in zephyr Check. 
************* Module pyocd_user
boards/arm/mm_swiftio/burner/pyocd_user.py:9:15: E0602: Undefined variable 'target' (undefined-variable)
    Is there any way to solve or bypass this problem? Thanks!
    You can find the modify https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/22536
    Add refer to https://github.com/mbedmicro/pyOCD/blob/master/docs/user_scripts.md

   

Dev-Review Meeting Agenda

Kumar Gala
 

All,

Meeting Minutes:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vfgwa1oRVuLA0f4VZW9pMBD2n2kf7ZgI9QCw_4s01gA/edit?usp=sharing

Agenda:

GitHub PR/Issues:

Add support for SiLabs EFR32BG13P SoC [Piotr M]
- https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/22423

Device Tree:

Roundup of DT agenda items for the dev review meeting from nordic:
- who will work on a zephyr docs PR which includes the conclusions from our last meeting?
- doing system initialization in DT dependency ordinal order (I want to discuss this)
- issue roundup:
- https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/19285
- https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/21369 (edited)
#19285 devicetree: fixed non-alias reference to specific nodes
#21369 devicetree: clearly define constraints on identifier/property name conflicts

New MCUBoot mailing list

Fabio Utzig <utzig@...>
 

Hi,

The MCUboot mailing list has been recently moved. We did not re-subscribe previously subscribed users, so for those interested it is now hosted here: https://groups.io/g/mcuboot

Cheers,
Fabio

The topic-gpio branch has been merged to master

Carles Cufi
 

Hi all,

As of this morning the 313 commits in the topic-gpio branch have been merged into Zephyr's master branch.

What this means for you if:

a) You are a GPIO API user:

- Big chunks of the existing API have been deprecated, leading to deprecation build warnings. You should port your application to the new GPIO API as soon as possible, although you have 2 full Zephyr releases until the deprecated API is finally removed. Please refer to Peter Bigot's "porting guide" in this GitHub comment for additional information:
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/20017#issuecomment-549315497

b) You have outstanding, unmerged Pull Requests:

- The Pull Requests may show green CI, but that is misleading. We encourage you to rebase your Pull Request as soon as possible against the current master and push.

- If your Pull Request makes use of the GPIO API, it will not pass CI due to deprecation warnings. There is no solution but to port your code to the new GPIO API. If you are on a deadline for 2.2 feature freeze ping us on the #gpio channel on Slack to see if we can help.

c) You are a maintainer with merge rights:

- You need to make sure that CI has been rerun after the topic-gpio merge happened and *before* you merge any Pull Request to master

Additional information about the merge process can be found here:

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/21789

Finally I want to thank everybody who contributed to this effort, which has spanned many months and several hundred commits.
Special mention to Piotr Mienkowski and Peter Bigot, whose dedication to getting this done has made it possible to merge this branch in time for the 2.2 release.

Regards,

Carles

Upcoming Event: Zephyr Project: APIs - Tue, 02/04/2020 9:00am-10:00am, Please RSVP #cal-reminder

devel@lists.zephyrproject.org Calendar <devel@...>
 

Reminder: Zephyr Project: APIs

When: Tuesday, 4 February 2020, 9:00am to 10:00am, (GMT-08:00) America/Los Angeles

Where:https://zoom.us/j/177647878

An RSVP is requested. Click here to RSVP

Organizer: devel@...

Description: Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://zoom.us/j/177647878

Or iPhone one-tap :
    US: +16465588656,,177647878# or +16699006833,,177647878# 
Or Telephone:
    Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): 
        US: +1 646 558 8656 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 855 880 1246 (Toll Free) or +1 877 369 0926 (Toll Free)
    Meeting ID: 177 647 878
    International numbers available: https://zoom.us/zoomconference?m=ioAR9GK1OE5LkN1ojt-heTCl7yPcJrhY


 Live meeting minutes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lv-8B5QE2m4FjBcvfqAXFIgQfW5oz6306zJ7GIZIWCk/edit?usp=sharing

API meeting: Agenda

Carles Cufi
 

Hi all,

Today we will talk first about GPIO and the merge of the topic-gpio branch to master:

- Cleanup the public and private API with typedefs
- Testing status
- Issues with master CI that might prevent the merge to master
- https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/21789

Additionally I'd like to discuss:

- RFC: API Change: clock_control
- https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/22424

- Ability to use an API with device without extending its own API
- https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/22415

Additional items in the "Triage" column in the GitHub project may be discussed if time permits.
If you want an item included in the meeting, please add it to the GitHub project.

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/wiki/Zephyr-Committee-and-Working-Group-Meetings#zephyr-api-discussion
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/projects/18
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lv-8B5QE2m4FjBcvfqAXFIgQfW5oz6306zJ7GIZIWCk/edit

Regards,

Carles

Re: support for multi instance zephyr in same soc

Carles Cufi
 

Hi Scott,

 

Yes, the whole “board” concept needs an overhaul to become instead “instances” or “targets” as you say.

In the nRF5340, which is a dual-core asymmetric Cortex-M33, we used “cpuapp” and “cpunet” to distinguish between the application core and the network core:

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/tree/master/boards/arm/nrf5340_dk_nrf5340

 

Carles

 

From: devel@... <devel@...> On Behalf Of Scott Branden via Lists.Zephyrproject.Org
Sent: 04 February 2020 02:23
To: Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@...>
Cc: devel@...
Subject: Re: [Zephyr-devel] support for multi instance zephyr in same soc

 

Thanks Kumar - we will go with this convention for naming the target.  ie board_cpu.

It will work out as long as there are not multiple cpu's on the same board that need different zephyr builds.

At that point you would need board_cpu_n

 

Really "boards" directory should be renamed "targets"?

 

On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 9:01 AM Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@...> wrote:

This has been a long standing issue.  Since these are both ARM you can get away with doing something similar to how we handle building different images for SoCs that have 2 different M-class cores.

Look at boards/arm/lpcxpresso54114 for an example

- k

> On Jan 30, 2020, at 3:17 PM, Scott Branden <sbranden@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> We are currently running zephyr on M7 and linux on A72.
>
> The base M7 support has been upstreamed here:
> https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/commit/54ce0b2d3464d44429108f436a528ece51f866ff
>
> We are now looking at running Zephyr on A72 instead of linux.
>
> But it doesn't look like Zephyr build system will work if we name the board name the same for each CPU ?
>
> Any suggestions on how to name and add support for 2 different instances of Zephyr running on the same board?
>
> In our case: something that might easily achieve this is if upcoming arm64 support was not put under boards/arm but under boards/arm64 and ARCH=arm64 used instead of ARCH=arm....
>
> Regards,
>  Scott Branden

Re: support for multi instance zephyr in same soc

Marc Herbert
 

Interesting, some parts of the documentation gave me the (wrong?) impression that a BOARD allowed some level of variation and configuration at build time:

https://docs.zephyrproject.org/latest/guides/dts/index.html#input-and-output-files
- "Optional DTS format files which override BOARD.dts"
- "Extensible with DTS_ROOT"

https://docs.zephyrproject.org/latest/guides/porting/board_porting.html#default-board-configuration
- "This default board configuration is subordinated to features activation which is application responsibility..."
- "... the board’s default Kconfig configuration, which is used in application builds unless explicitly overridden."

Marc

On 3 Feb 2020, at 17:22, Scott Branden <sbranden@...> wrote:

Thanks Kumar - we will go with this convention for naming the target. ie board_cpu.
It will work out as long as there are not multiple cpu's on the same board that need different zephyr builds.
At that point you would need board_cpu_n

Really "boards" directory should be renamed "targets"?

On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 9:01 AM Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@...> wrote:
This has been a long standing issue. Since these are both ARM you can get away with doing something similar to how we handle building different images for SoCs that have 2 different M-class cores.

Look at boards/arm/lpcxpresso54114 for an example

- k

On Jan 30, 2020, at 3:17 PM, Scott Branden <sbranden@...> wrote:

Hello,

We are currently running zephyr on M7 and linux on A72.

The base M7 support has been upstreamed here:
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/commit/54ce0b2d3464d44429108f436a528ece51f866ff

We are now looking at running Zephyr on A72 instead of linux.

But it doesn't look like Zephyr build system will work if we name the board name the same for each CPU ?

Any suggestions on how to name and add support for 2 different instances of Zephyr running on the same board?

In our case: something that might easily achieve this is if upcoming arm64 support was not put under boards/arm but under boards/arm64 and ARCH=arm64 used instead of ARCH=arm....

Regards,
Scott Branden

Re: support for multi instance zephyr in same soc

Scott Branden
 

Thanks Kumar - we will go with this convention for naming the target.  ie board_cpu.
It will work out as long as there are not multiple cpu's on the same board that need different zephyr builds.
At that point you would need board_cpu_n

Really "boards" directory should be renamed "targets"?


On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 9:01 AM Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@...> wrote:
This has been a long standing issue.  Since these are both ARM you can get away with doing something similar to how we handle building different images for SoCs that have 2 different M-class cores.

Look at boards/arm/lpcxpresso54114 for an example

- k

> On Jan 30, 2020, at 3:17 PM, Scott Branden <sbranden@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> We are currently running zephyr on M7 and linux on A72.
>
> The base M7 support has been upstreamed here:
> https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/commit/54ce0b2d3464d44429108f436a528ece51f866ff
>
> We are now looking at running Zephyr on A72 instead of linux.
>
> But it doesn't look like Zephyr build system will work if we name the board name the same for each CPU ?
>
> Any suggestions on how to name and add support for 2 different instances of Zephyr running on the same board?
>
> In our case: something that might easily achieve this is if upcoming arm64 support was not put under boards/arm but under boards/arm64 and ARCH=arm64 used instead of ARCH=arm....
>
> Regards,
>  Scott Branden

Re: [Zephyr-users] SDK 0.11.1 Release

Nashif, Anas
 

Hi,
Thanks Kumar.

Please note that this version of the SDK is now required for development on master and is enabled in CI.


Anas

On 03/02/2020, 05:56, "users@... on behalf of Kumar Gala" <users@... on behalf of kumar.gala@...> wrote:

Hi,

Some minor fixes that got missed for the v0.11.0 release. Mostly impacts OpenOCD and newlib usage.

The SDK can be found here:

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/sdk-ng/releases/tag/v0.11.1

Please download and try things out and report any issues.

OpenOCD:

• Fixed missing commits from rebase - related to ARC and Zephyr RTOS awareness

Newlib:

• Removed setting -DMISSING_SYSCALL_NAMES on builds. Make syscall function names consistent and naming compatible with 3rd party GNU toolchains.

Thanks to all that contributed fixes and enhancements to this version of the SDK.

- k

Re: Bluetooth: Starting dev for TI CC256x support

Arnaud Mouiche
 

Hello Christopher,

Le 03/02/2020 à 13:44, Christopher Friedt a écrit :
On Mon., Feb. 3, 2020, 6:57 a.m. Arnaud Mouiche, <arnaud.mouiche@...> wrote:
Questions:
- Is there already somebody working on the subject ?

I'm working on the split-LL BLE stack [1] implementation currently, but that is for the "Single Chip" configuration.

From what you describe, it sounds as though you would like to use the SoC as a BLE coprocessor, either over UART or SPI or something. Is that correct? In that case there may be a way to add a vendor-specific HCI command [2] or simply call the command from within your application.

Yes, I will use the Bluetooth chipset with HCI over UART connection.
I will check your advice.

Thanks,
Arnaud

Re: Bluetooth: Starting dev for TI CC256x support

Arnaud Mouiche
 

Hello Peter,

The chipset I expect to support first is the CC2564 which is not a SOC but a simple HCI adapter.
Zephyr will run on another MCU.

Regards,
Arnaud

Le 03/02/2020 à 13:35, Peter A. Bigot a écrit :

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/22012 removed support for this SOC.  If you're interested in maintaining this platform, it could be resurrected.  Please comment on that issue to get started.

Peter

RFC: API Change: clock_control

Chruściński, Krzysztof
 

Hi all,

 

I’ve created a RFC for clock control API update: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/22424

 

Please review and comment on the GitHub issue.

 

Regards,

Krzysztof Chruściński

 

Re: Bluetooth: Starting dev for TI CC256x support

Christopher Friedt
 

On Mon., Feb. 3, 2020, 6:57 a.m. Arnaud Mouiche, <arnaud.mouiche@...> wrote:
Questions:
- Is there already somebody working on the subject ?

I'm working on the split-LL BLE stack [1] implementation currently, but that is for the "Single Chip" configuration.

From what you describe, it sounds as though you would like to use the SoC as a BLE coprocessor, either over UART or SPI or something. Is that correct? In that case there may be a way to add a vendor-specific HCI command [2] or simply call the command from within your application.