|
Re: [users] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: STM32F103x port
I am working right now on defining a new layer in Kconfig and reorganising Kconfig for this purpose and will take the STM32 changes and propose better structure for all architectures and existing
I am working right now on defining a new layer in Kconfig and reorganising Kconfig for this purpose and will take the STM32 changes and propose better structure for all architectures and existing
|
By
Nashif, Anas
·
#2565
·
|
|
Re: [users] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: STM32F103x port
By
Kalowsky, Daniel <daniel.kalowsky@...>
·
#2564
·
|
|
Zephyr SDK v0.7.2 - "rm -rf /"
I downloaded the Zephyr SDK v0.7.2 last night and tried to install it this morning on my MacBook.
During the installation, I cancelled with ctrl-C and somehow it seems to have executed a "rm -rf /"
I downloaded the Zephyr SDK v0.7.2 last night and tried to install it this morning on my MacBook.
During the installation, I cancelled with ctrl-C and somehow it seems to have executed a "rm -rf /"
|
By
Mads Kristiansen <mkristian@...>
·
#2563
·
|
|
Re: [users] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: STM32F103x port
We are looking into this and will send a proposal to address this by EOD.
Anas
We are looking into this and will send a proposal to address this by EOD.
Anas
|
By
Nashif, Anas
·
#2562
·
|
|
Re: [users] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: STM32F103x port
Do we have a consensus on this matter then? Did you get a chance to
discuss this internally?
Cheers,
--
Maciek Borzecki
Do we have a consensus on this matter then? Did you get a chance to
discuss this internally?
Cheers,
--
Maciek Borzecki
|
By
Maciek Borzecki <maciek.borzecki@...>
·
#2561
·
|
|
Re: FRDM-K64 GPIO driver name
Thanks Tomasz,
It compiles :)
I will try lator today with a real GPIO test.
Thanks again.
/Anders
Thanks Tomasz,
It compiles :)
I will try lator today with a real GPIO test.
Thanks again.
/Anders
|
By
Anders Dam Kofoed <adk@...>
·
#2560
·
|
|
Re: FRDM-K64 GPIO driver name
Hi Anders,
According to arch/arm/soc/fsl_frdm_k64f/Kconfig GPIO and GPIO_K64 are
set by default.
Verify you get these in your output/.config
The name you should use is GPIO_K64_<X>_DEV_NAME (where
Hi Anders,
According to arch/arm/soc/fsl_frdm_k64f/Kconfig GPIO and GPIO_K64 are
set by default.
Verify you get these in your output/.config
The name you should use is GPIO_K64_<X>_DEV_NAME (where
|
By
Tomasz Bursztyka
·
#2559
·
|
|
FRDM-K64 GPIO driver name
Hi,
I am trying to use GPIO on my Freescale FRDM-K64 board. However, I cannot seem to find the driver name. It from this page that the driver name should be something like
Hi,
I am trying to use GPIO on my Freescale FRDM-K64 board. However, I cannot seem to find the driver name. It from this page that the driver name should be something like
|
By
Anders Dam Kofoed <adk@...>
·
#2558
·
|
|
FRDM-K64 PRINT not working
Hi,
I have a Freescale FRDM-K64 board. I cannot get the samples/hello_world/microkernel to work. Compiling with this:
# make O=out-arm BOARD=frdm_k64f
It compiles fine and the out-arm/zephyr.bin can
Hi,
I have a Freescale FRDM-K64 board. I cannot get the samples/hello_world/microkernel to work. Compiling with this:
# make O=out-arm BOARD=frdm_k64f
It compiles fine and the out-arm/zephyr.bin can
|
By
Anders Dam Kofoed <adk@...>
·
#2557
·
|
|
Re: 2/5 System Device Driver Modifications
That was my first thought but I don't think we have the liberty of changing our 1.0 APIs.
Andrew
That was my first thought but I don't think we have the liberty of changing our 1.0 APIs.
Andrew
|
By
Boie, Andrew P
·
#2556
·
|
|
Re: 2/5 System Device Driver Modifications
Sounds good. We can use the SYS_INIT_NAMED() macro for devices that
need a name for PM purpose.
Do you think we should replace SYS_INIT() with the new one? i.e. just
modify SYS_INIT(). I am ok
Sounds good. We can use the SYS_INIT_NAMED() macro for devices that
need a name for PM purpose.
Do you think we should replace SYS_INIT() with the new one? i.e. just
modify SYS_INIT(). I am ok
|
By
Thomas, Ramesh
·
#2555
·
|
|
Re: RFC: Use error codes from errno.h
Hi all,
Quoting Andre Guedes (2016-03-03 16:43:24)
Do we have a consensus about this?
After the "errno-drivers" patchset, DEV_* codes will be used only at 'board'
and 'arch' layers. Actually, all
Hi all,
Quoting Andre Guedes (2016-03-03 16:43:24)
Do we have a consensus about this?
After the "errno-drivers" patchset, DEV_* codes will be used only at 'board'
and 'arch' layers. Actually, all
|
By
Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@...>
·
#2554
·
|
|
Re: RFC: Use error codes from errno.h
Hi all,
Quoting Andre Guedes (2016-03-04 10:55:24)
I just sent a patchset with topic "errno-drivers" implementing what we have
discussed in this RFC. The patchset basically redefines DEV_* using -E*
Hi all,
Quoting Andre Guedes (2016-03-04 10:55:24)
I just sent a patchset with topic "errno-drivers" implementing what we have
discussed in this RFC. The patchset basically redefines DEV_* using -E*
|
By
Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@...>
·
#2553
·
|
|
Re: [users] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: STM32F103x port
Something that also occurred to me: we have the same issue with our
boards/ directory. As Zephyr gets put on more and more boards we're
going to find ourselves with different variants of each board. I
Something that also occurred to me: we have the same issue with our
boards/ directory. As Zephyr gets put on more and more boards we're
going to find ourselves with different variants of each board. I
|
By
Boie, Andrew P
·
#2552
·
|
|
Re: 2/5 System Device Driver Modifications
I see. So at boot it could use device_get_binding() or DEVICE_GET() to
populate some data structure with device pointers which is then used at
suspend/resume time.
You're already calling .suspend the
I see. So at boot it could use device_get_binding() or DEVICE_GET() to
populate some data structure with device pointers which is then used at
suspend/resume time.
You're already calling .suspend the
|
By
Boie, Andrew P
·
#2551
·
|
|
Re: [users] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: STM32F103x port
By
Maureen Helm
·
#2550
·
|
|
Re: 2/5 System Device Driver Modifications
The list enables the PMA to choose the order in which it
suspends/resumes the devices by creating its own ordered list based on
policies. If the iteration is done by the kernel then the order will
The list enables the PMA to choose the order in which it
suspends/resumes the devices by creating its own ordered list based on
policies. If the iteration is done by the kernel then the order will
|
By
Thomas, Ramesh
·
#2549
·
|
|
Re: 2/5 System Device Driver Modifications
If you just need to iterate over all devices this code does the job:
struct device *info;
for (info = __device_init_start; info != __device_init_end; info++) {
/* do stuff */
}
Could add an API to
If you just need to iterate over all devices this code does the job:
struct device *info;
for (info = __device_init_start; info != __device_init_end; info++) {
/* do stuff */
}
Could add an API to
|
By
Boie, Andrew P
·
#2548
·
|
|
Re: RFC: 2/5 System Device Driver Modifications
Hi,
"Thomas, Ramesh" <ramesh.thomas(a)intel.com> writes:
Ah, I see. Thanks.
Cheers,
--
Vinicius
Hi,
"Thomas, Ramesh" <ramesh.thomas(a)intel.com> writes:
Ah, I see. Thanks.
Cheers,
--
Vinicius
|
By
Vinicius Costa Gomes
·
#2547
·
|
|
Re: RFC: 2/5 System Device Driver Modifications
The power manager application should be able to handle that case. It
can either retry after trying other drivers, ignore that driver or abort
suspend.
The callback is not going to help because
The power manager application should be able to handle that case. It
can either retry after trying other drivers, ignore that driver or abort
suspend.
The callback is not going to help because
|
By
Thomas, Ramesh
·
#2546
·
|