|
Re: [RFC v2] uart: add ISR callback mechanism for UART drivers
Because of the pointer dereference, the check for NULL and the function
call ? It's probably OK. And you could turn the check into an __ASSERT()
if you want to save a bit or both code space and
Because of the pointer dereference, the check for NULL and the function
call ? It's probably OK. And you could turn the check into an __ASSERT()
if you want to save a bit or both code space and
|
By
Benjamin Walsh <benjamin.walsh@...>
·
#2444
·
|
|
Re: STM32F103x port
stm32 is very generic, we should consider placing the series at the top level under soc/ and have the supported SoCs below it. So for STM32 we will end up with
stm32f0/
stm32 is very generic, we should consider placing the series at the top level under soc/ and have the supported SoCs below it. So for STM32 we will end up with
stm32f0/
|
By
Nashif, Anas
·
#2445
·
|
|
Re: STM32F103x port
By
Kalowsky, Daniel <daniel.kalowsky@...>
·
#2443
·
|
|
Re: RFC[1/2] Common logging infrastructure and API
This could be implemented without a "global" category but providing an
menu option to rise log level of every category lower than user input.
Currently I have a "default" log level to deal with
This could be implemented without a "global" category but providing an
menu option to rise log level of every category lower than user input.
Currently I have a "default" log level to deal with
|
By
Saucedo Tejada, Genaro <genaro.saucedo.tejada@...>
·
#2442
·
|
|
Re: RFC[2/2] Common logging infrastructure and API
I mean applications could rely on log API to report the most important
messages even in a complete application (that's what I meant by
production), it wouldn't make sense to expect a terminal in that
I mean applications could rely on log API to report the most important
messages even in a complete application (that's what I meant by
production), it wouldn't make sense to expect a terminal in that
|
By
Saucedo Tejada, Genaro <genaro.saucedo.tejada@...>
·
#2441
·
|
|
Re: STM32F103x port
The main issue with this is the fact that stm32 extends all the way from M0 to M7, in total set of 11 series
• STM32F0 Series
• STM32F1 Series
• STM32F2 Series
• STM32F3 Series
•
The main issue with this is the fact that stm32 extends all the way from M0 to M7, in total set of 11 series
• STM32F0 Series
• STM32F1 Series
• STM32F2 Series
• STM32F3 Series
•
|
By
Nashif, Anas
·
#2439
·
|
|
Re: RFC[1/2] Common logging infrastructure and API
Maybe it did not come clear in my reply, but what I proposed did not
have a global logging level, or rather, the global level is always
"OFF". Each subsystem that you want to log has to enable it,
Maybe it did not come clear in my reply, but what I proposed did not
have a global logging level, or rather, the global level is always
"OFF". Each subsystem that you want to log has to enable it,
|
By
Benjamin Walsh <benjamin.walsh@...>
·
#2440
·
|
|
Re: STM32F103x port
+1
--
Benjamin Walsh, SMTS
Wind River Rocket
www.windriver.com
Zephyr kernel maintainer
www.zephyrproject.org
+1
--
Benjamin Walsh, SMTS
Wind River Rocket
www.windriver.com
Zephyr kernel maintainer
www.zephyrproject.org
|
By
Benjamin Walsh <benjamin.walsh@...>
·
#2438
·
|
|
Re: STM32F103x port
<daniel.kalowsky(a)intel.com> wrote:
Single 'x' as in 'everything that comes after the i-1 character' :)
As for the models, I'm not aware of any non STF32F10x MCUs, however
all of these are
<daniel.kalowsky(a)intel.com> wrote:
Single 'x' as in 'everything that comes after the i-1 character' :)
As for the models, I'm not aware of any non STF32F10x MCUs, however
all of these are
|
By
Maciek Borzecki <maciek.borzecki@...>
·
#2437
·
|
|
Re: RFC [0/3] - SoC, CPU LPS, Tickless idle and Device power management
Sure. I will be glad to work with you on making it better. Thanks.
Sure. I will be glad to work with you on making it better. Thanks.
|
By
Thomas, Ramesh
·
#2436
·
|
|
Re: RFC [2/3] - SoC, CPU LPS, Tickless idle and Device power management
device
called
In this RFC I tried to keep the main ideas and feedbacks from the
original RFCs but made some modifications as I encountered issues during
implementation. These should not impact the
device
called
In this RFC I tried to keep the main ideas and feedbacks from the
original RFCs but made some modifications as I encountered issues during
implementation. These should not impact the
|
By
Thomas, Ramesh
·
#2435
·
|
|
Re: STM32F103x port
Hey Pawel,
By
Kalowsky, Daniel <daniel.kalowsky@...>
·
#2434
·
|
|
Re: STM32F103x port
By
Kalowsky, Daniel <daniel.kalowsky@...>
·
#2433
·
|
|
Re: RFC[2/2] Common logging infrastructure and API
By
Kalowsky, Daniel <daniel.kalowsky@...>
·
#2432
·
|
|
Re: RFC [0/3] - SoC, CPU LPS, Tickless idle and Device power management
Hi Ramesh,
By
Kalowsky, Daniel <daniel.kalowsky@...>
·
#2431
·
|
|
Re: RFC[1/2] Common logging infrastructure and API
Implementing this.
+1
I'm supporting this now and will implement this on some reference
module as example for the following patch set.
Implementing this.
+1
I'm supporting this now and will implement this on some reference
module as example for the following patch set.
|
By
Saucedo Tejada, Genaro <genaro.saucedo.tejada@...>
·
#2430
·
|
|
Re: RFC[1/2] Common logging infrastructure and API
I understand, for this first effort the goal is to unify calls under a
single API that can be later provided by different implementations. I
don't foresee conflicts between initial proposal and
I understand, for this first effort the goal is to unify calls under a
single API that can be later provided by different implementations. I
don't foresee conflicts between initial proposal and
|
By
Saucedo Tejada, Genaro <genaro.saucedo.tejada@...>
·
#2429
·
|
|
Re: RFC[2/2] Common logging infrastructure and API
Although a namespace is needed (as noted bellow) debug is not the only
goal of this infrastructure INFO and ERROR level might be used for big
production environments in the future.
I reused some
Although a namespace is needed (as noted bellow) debug is not the only
goal of this infrastructure INFO and ERROR level might be used for big
production environments in the future.
I reused some
|
By
Saucedo Tejada, Genaro <genaro.saucedo.tejada@...>
·
#2428
·
|
|
[RFC v2] uart: add ISR callback mechanism for UART drivers
The peripherals utilizing UART were required to register their own
ISR rountines. This means that all those peripherals drivers need
to know which IRQ line is attached to a UART controller, and
The peripherals utilizing UART were required to register their own
ISR rountines. This means that all those peripherals drivers need
to know which IRQ line is attached to a UART controller, and
|
By
Daniel Leung <daniel.leung@...>
·
#2427
·
|
|
Re: [RFC] Nanokernel timers rework proposal
Yes, after the timeout expires, delta_ticks_from_prev is -1. I agree, we
can check it and not use any flag.
This can be implemented. In this case nano_timer_test() places the
nano_timeout part of
Yes, after the timeout expires, delta_ticks_from_prev is -1. I agree, we
can check it and not use any flag.
This can be implemented. In this case nano_timer_test() places the
nano_timeout part of
|
By
Dmitriy Korovkin
·
#2426
·
|