Date   

#nrf52840 #ble unstable connection #nrf52840 #ble

Randy Chou <rchou3@...>
 

Hi community,
I'm using nrf52840 on our own development board, I met one problem about abnormal disconnect.

  • environment:
[Central] use BLE nRF connect run on nRF52840_PCA10056 (Windows)
[Peripheral 1] Zephyr peripheral_hids sample application runs on nRF52840_PCA10056
[Peripheral 2] Zephyr peripheral_hids sample application runs on our EVB (nRF52840)
  • result:
[per 1] the connection keeps.
[per 2] abnormal disconnect while I move the central a bit far away from peripheral (< 1m).

  • experiment
  1.  move the central device close next to peripheral 2. it can keeps connection.
  2. change the connection interval from 30ms to 7.5ms/10ms/15ms, it can keeps connection
  3. use our own FW which uses SoftDevice as Bluetooth stack. The distance won't affect the connection.
I'm wondering is this issue related to frequency drift.
As my understanding, in SoftDevice, it will do the clock calibration automatically.
I only find one related configuration (CONFIG_CLOCK_CONTROL_NRF5_K32SRC_250PPM).
Does it also have same feature in Zephyr? 
or do you have other comment about this issue?

Thanks,
Randy


Re: Zephyr Memory Heap Size

"K.I.R.A.
 

Hi Chintan,
I'm not sure we can do like that.
But you might define your customized mem pool, and take use of k_mem_alloc* instead.

Looking forward to more ideas!

Best Regards,
Bub

---Original---
From: " via Lists.Zephyrproject.Org"<meetcd=yahoo.com@...>
Date: Wed, Oct 31, 2018 21:43 PM
To: "devel@..."<devel@...>;"K.I.R.A."<38900484@...>;
Cc: "devel"<devel@...>;
Subject: Re: [Zephyr-devel] Zephyr Memory Heap Size


Hi Bub,

Thanks for reply.

My question is related to only HEAP MEM POOL and not GENERIC MEM POOL.

In other words can I have CONFIG_HEAP_MEM_POOL_SIZE greater than 16k bytes? My heap requirement to satisfy all k_malloc() is higher.

Regards,
Chintan

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018, 5:25:22 PM GMT+5:30, K.I.R.A. <38900484@...> wrote:


Hi Chintan,
It's a single maximum size block.
I'm wondering which scenario you need such big block.

Best Regards,
Bub

---Original---
From: " via Lists.Zephyrproject.Org"<meetcd=yahoo.com@...>
Date: Wed, Oct 31, 2018 18:04 PM
To: "devel@..."<devel@...>;
Cc: "devel"<devel@...>;
Subject: [Zephyr-devel] Zephyr Memory Heap Size

Hi Community,

As per Zephyr Documentation in this link.


The size of the heap memory pool is configurable. The following sizes are supported: 256 bytes, 1024 bytes, 4096 bytes, and 16384 bytes.

Does that mean we can not have heap size greater than 16384 bytes? Please clarify.

Regards,
Chintan


Re: Zephyr Memory Heap Size

Chintan Patel <meetcd@...>
 


Hi Bub,

Thanks for reply.

My question is related to only HEAP MEM POOL and not GENERIC MEM POOL.

In other words can I have CONFIG_HEAP_MEM_POOL_SIZE greater than 16k bytes? My heap requirement to satisfy all k_malloc() is higher.

Regards,
Chintan

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018, 5:25:22 PM GMT+5:30, K.I.R.A. <38900484@...> wrote:


Hi Chintan,
It's a single maximum size block.
I'm wondering which scenario you need such big block.

Best Regards,
Bub

---Original---
From: " via Lists.Zephyrproject.Org"<meetcd=yahoo.com@...>
Date: Wed, Oct 31, 2018 18:04 PM
To: "devel@..."<devel@...>;
Cc: "devel"<devel@...>;
Subject: [Zephyr-devel] Zephyr Memory Heap Size

Hi Community,

As per Zephyr Documentation in this link.


The size of the heap memory pool is configurable. The following sizes are supported: 256 bytes, 1024 bytes, 4096 bytes, and 16384 bytes.

Does that mean we can not have heap size greater than 16384 bytes? Please clarify.

Regards,
Chintan


Re: Zephyr Memory Heap Size

"K.I.R.A.
 

Hi Chintan,
It's a single maximum size block.
I'm wondering which scenario you need such big block.

Best Regards,
Bub

---Original---
From: " via Lists.Zephyrproject.Org"<meetcd=yahoo.com@...>
Date: Wed, Oct 31, 2018 18:04 PM
To: "devel@..."<devel@...>;
Cc: "devel"<devel@...>;
Subject: [Zephyr-devel] Zephyr Memory Heap Size

Hi Community,

As per Zephyr Documentation in this link.


The size of the heap memory pool is configurable. The following sizes are supported: 256 bytes, 1024 bytes, 4096 bytes, and 16384 bytes.

Does that mean we can not have heap size greater than 16384 bytes? Please clarify.

Regards,
Chintan


Re: I2C Driver nfrx_twi BUSY state #nrf52840

Rodrigo Peixoto
 

Why aren't you using the Zephyr i2c driver instead of nrfx?

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 23:49 Rodrigo Peixoto <rodrigopex@...> wrote:
I would suggest you to use the mutex or even a semaphore to deal with the concurrent access to the driver. It seems to be the simple way in my point of view.

Indeed I guess the first "workaround" you suggest could be added to the driver. It would be better than return always an EIO.

Best regards,
Rodrigo Peixoto
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 12:47 <aurelien.vouaillat@...> wrote:
Hi,

I'm currently using the i2c_nrfx_twi driver to process i2c transfers with some peripherals.
I have several slave units on the same i2c bus and use multi-threading to deal with all of them.

I have to face the problem that at least two threads have to use the i2c bus at the same time.
Unfortunately the i2c_nrfx_twi_transfer() function doesn't handle this issue and only returns
-EIO  even if the real problem comes from the busy state of the i2c bus:

nrfx_err_t res = nrfx_twi_xfer(&get_dev_config(dev)->twi,
                           &cur_xfer,
                           (msgs[i].flags & I2C_MSG_STOP) ?
                           0 : NRFX_TWI_FLAG_TX_NO_STOP);


        if (res != NRFX_SUCCESS) {
            LOG_ERR("Error nrfx_twi_xfer with %d", res);
            return -EIO;
        }

Easy workarounds was to :

1- Add another if case :
if (res != NRFX_ERROR_BUSY)
and return a -EBUSY

OR

2- Protect the function with a mutex and leaving the kernel handle this using the priority of each threads

I don't know if there are better/cleaner solution than these two ones but i would really appreciate some help

Thanks
Aurelien
--
Rodrigo Peixoto
Co-founder and Technical guru

+55 (82) 98144-8585
http://ayna.tech | Skype: rodrigopex

.

--
Rodrigo Peixoto
Co-founder and Technical guru

+55 (82) 98144-8585
http://ayna.tech | Skype: rodrigopex

.


Zephyr Memory Heap Size

Chintan Patel <meetcd@...>
 

Hi Community,

As per Zephyr Documentation in this link.


The size of the heap memory pool is configurable. The following sizes are supported: 256 bytes, 1024 bytes, 4096 bytes, and 16384 bytes.

Does that mean we can not have heap size greater than 16384 bytes? Please clarify.

Regards,
Chintan


Re: I2C Driver nfrx_twi BUSY state #nrf52840

Rodrigo Peixoto
 

I would suggest you to use the mutex or even a semaphore to deal with the concurrent access to the driver. It seems to be the simple way in my point of view.

Indeed I guess the first "workaround" you suggest could be added to the driver. It would be better than return always an EIO.

Best regards,
Rodrigo Peixoto

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 12:47 <aurelien.vouaillat@...> wrote:
Hi,

I'm currently using the i2c_nrfx_twi driver to process i2c transfers with some peripherals.
I have several slave units on the same i2c bus and use multi-threading to deal with all of them.

I have to face the problem that at least two threads have to use the i2c bus at the same time.
Unfortunately the i2c_nrfx_twi_transfer() function doesn't handle this issue and only returns
-EIO  even if the real problem comes from the busy state of the i2c bus:

nrfx_err_t res = nrfx_twi_xfer(&get_dev_config(dev)->twi,
                           &cur_xfer,
                           (msgs[i].flags & I2C_MSG_STOP) ?
                           0 : NRFX_TWI_FLAG_TX_NO_STOP);


        if (res != NRFX_SUCCESS) {
            LOG_ERR("Error nrfx_twi_xfer with %d", res);
            return -EIO;
        }

Easy workarounds was to :

1- Add another if case :
if (res != NRFX_ERROR_BUSY)
and return a -EBUSY

OR

2- Protect the function with a mutex and leaving the kernel handle this using the priority of each threads

I don't know if there are better/cleaner solution than these two ones but i would really appreciate some help

Thanks
Aurelien

--
Rodrigo Peixoto
Co-founder and Technical guru

+55 (82) 98144-8585
http://ayna.tech | Skype: rodrigopex

.


I2C Driver nfrx_twi BUSY state #nrf52840

aurelien.vouaillat@...
 

Hi,

I'm currently using the i2c_nrfx_twi driver to process i2c transfers with some peripherals.
I have several slave units on the same i2c bus and use multi-threading to deal with all of them.

I have to face the problem that at least two threads have to use the i2c bus at the same time.
Unfortunately the i2c_nrfx_twi_transfer() function doesn't handle this issue and only returns
-EIO  even if the real problem comes from the busy state of the i2c bus:

nrfx_err_t res = nrfx_twi_xfer(&get_dev_config(dev)->twi,
                           &cur_xfer,
                           (msgs[i].flags & I2C_MSG_STOP) ?
                           0 : NRFX_TWI_FLAG_TX_NO_STOP);


        if (res != NRFX_SUCCESS) {
            LOG_ERR("Error nrfx_twi_xfer with %d", res);
            return -EIO;
        }

Easy workarounds was to :

1- Add another if case :
if (res != NRFX_ERROR_BUSY)
and return a -EBUSY

OR

2- Protect the function with a mutex and leaving the kernel handle this using the priority of each threads

I don't know if there are better/cleaner solution than these two ones but i would really appreciate some help

Thanks
Aurelien


Re: [Zephyr-tsc] [Zephyr-devel] Highlights from the TSC meeting during ELCE

Sigvart Hovland
 

[]

1. Development channel on IRC
2. I believe there is/was something like #zephyr-bluetooth on IRC
too. I never understood why, but I heard there was.
3. Slack channel.
4. Reddit subreddit
... more
Not sure if I get this, but I think you are suggesting we combine both
IRC and Slack. While I don't think that's the greatest of situations
to find ourselves in, I would have no problem using both (I already do
in fact). But then we'd need the devs to also frequent the Slack
channel, otherwise it'd be a bit pointless.
Right, and besides that "potentially pointless" situation (or more specifically, depending on the goodwill of developers), there 2 other
choices: don't change anything, let it work like it worked for decades, people who need will find their way on IRC. Or, forcibly move everyone elsewhere.
Isn't there a 3rd option which does require some more work than the other two other options and that is to have both slack and IRC while mirroring the channels from IRC to slack with an IRC-slack bridge[0](sort of like this but you could make it more advanced)? At least that's what we did when we migrated to slack on another project I worked on. That way devs don't have to frequent slack as it's optional but a nice addition.

One of the big pain points I've had with these bridges is however if the slack-IRC bot disconnects for some reason you'll lose history synchronisation between the sides, also there is maintenance and upkeep. So someone has to be responsible for making sure it's alive and kicking at least. Another problem I've faced is that the bridge does not support threading so if people start a discussion in a thread on slack, this will be lost on IRC. Maybe some newer bridges have support for this.

At least the problems I see with IRC at this point is that if you are not connected continuously (paying for web-based clients) or running on your own server, you'll lose history. This can be mitigated with an IRC bot where you could /msg history or public logs, but I don't see either in the project at the moment. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place [1]?

I'm curious which route will be taken. But I'm sure that whichever will, it will be for the greater good of the project.
Anyway, while that was the more controversial point in Anas' email, I guess the most *important* is upcoming PR/patch process changes. So, I guess I'll wait for more info on that part from now on. (But I do hope that more people will cast their "votes" of IRC vs non-IRC matter yet.)
So I'll cast my "vote" right in the middle and ask for the consideration of having both with an integration in between them where you mirror the channels to slack(this way you could also see which channels are being used). I also think these kinds of bridges exists for gitter. This will also give new developers/users from a younger age group or those who are inexperienced with IRC a lower barrier of entry and maybe they'll eventually migrate over to IRC or visa versa.

[0] https://github.com/ekmartin/slack-irc
[1] https://freenode.irclog.whitequark.org/


Re: [Zephyr-tsc] [Zephyr-devel] Highlights from the TSC meeting during ELCE

Paul Sokolovsky
 

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 22:08:55 +0000
"Cufi, Carles" <Carles.Cufi@nordicsemi.no> wrote:

Hi Paul,
[]

For what is worth, I (relatively) regularly comment and post on
Reddit about Zephyr. On r/embedded to be precise, but also on other
subreddits.
Great to know, you must be <...> then ;-) (Well, nick is skipped for
privacy reasons).

1. Development channel on IRC
2. I believe there is/was something like #zephyr-bluetooth on IRC
too. I never understood why, but I heard there was.
3. Slack channel.
4. Reddit subreddit
... more
Not sure if I get this, but I think you are suggesting we combine
both IRC and Slack. While I don't think that's the greatest of
situations to find ourselves in, I would have no problem using both
(I already do in fact). But then we'd need the devs to also frequent
the Slack channel, otherwise it'd be a bit pointless.
Right, and besides that "potentially pointless" situation (or more
specifically, depending on the goodwill of developers), there 2 other
choices: don't change anything, let it work like it worked for decades,
people who need will find their way on IRC. Or, forcibly move everyone
elsewhere.

I'm curious which route will be taken. But I'm sure that whichever
will, it will be for the greater good of the project.

Anyway, while that was the more controversial point in Anas' email, I
guess the most *important* is upcoming PR/patch process changes. So, I
guess I'll wait for more info on that part from now on. (But I do hope
that more people will cast their "votes" of IRC vs non-IRC matter yet.)


Carles


--
Best Regards,
Paul

Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro
http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog


Re: [Zephyr-tsc] [Zephyr-devel] Highlights from the TSC meeting during ELCE

Paul Sokolovsky
 

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:58:22 +0000
Marti Bolivar <marti@foundries.io> wrote:

[]

Slack is a proprietary de facto standard in this context, at
least in the west.
Love that argument. So, perhaps we shouldn't look for easy ways and
embrace diversity in general, and look for WeChat that you
mentioned or QQ?
This sentence is hard to parse, but I suspect you (and Flavio) have
both missed my point, which was that if you're talking about
"everyone's" favorite chat clients by raw number of users, IRC
integration is basically non-existent. So claiming that as a plus
seems bogus.
I personally never talked about "favorite chat clients" or something. I
just calmly use mine, based on the projects' requirements, and those
requirements for last 10-15 years were consistent - IRC (so yes, I
had to acquire my favorite IRC client, etc.). Now requirements seem to
change, so I'm just trying to understand why, and make sure that if
change is made, no improvement opportunities are missed or hasty
decisions are made, like trading "east" for "west", etc.

[]

The more dissemination we have, the better. Just randomly searched
for "zephyr rtos" (no hope for just "zephyr") on Reddit, and
disappointedly, #1 hit is still the post for 1.9 release I made a
year ago. If we can't make semi-regular posts on popular IT crowd
sites like Reddit, let's at least create a Slack channel. Or can do
both actually. Or all of them:

1. Development channel on IRC
2. I believe there is/was something like #zephyr-bluetooth on IRC
too. I never understood why, but I heard there was.
3. Slack channel.
4. Reddit subreddit
... more
So "do all the things"?
Yes, and weekly summaries of Zephyr changes too. Why not?

For one, I hope there won't be external directives where to go,
especially represented as a "community decision". (Note that I
personally happy to follow any project requirements, especially if
it's clear where they originate from and what are their purpose.)

but I think we
ought to be honest with ourselves that this is really what we are
arguing about.

[]
Since you deleted most of the rest of the context in this thread so
far, I'm not sure what including the above followed by "[]" means.
That's easy: "[]" is a common placeholder for deleted text; there was
a complaint that quoting of the thread was broken, moreover I don't
think that every participant of such threads should comment every
point of other participants, a couple of important is enough, or
discussion get unwieldy. Finally, I really appreciate your call to be
honest with ourselves of what we're arguing about, so I tried to say in
fair manner what I think about these matters.


Thanks,
Marti
[]

--
Best Regards,
Paul

Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro
http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog


Re: [Zephyr-tsc] [Zephyr-devel] Highlights from the TSC meeting during ELCE

Marti Bolivar <marti@...>
 



On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 9:45 PM Paul Sokolovsky <paul.sokolovsky@...> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:11:04 +0000
"Marti Bolivar" <marti@...> wrote:

[]

> Slack is a proprietary de facto standard in this context, at least in
> the west.

Love that argument. So, perhaps we shouldn't look for easy ways and
embrace diversity in general, and look for WeChat that you mentioned or
QQ?

This sentence is hard to parse, but I suspect you (and Flavio) have both missed my point, which was that if you're talking about "everyone's" favorite chat clients by raw number of users, IRC integration is basically non-existent. So claiming that as a plus seems bogus.


From Carles next mail:

> IRC is not only a tool for core contributors, maintainers and TSC
> members, but also users of the RTOS. The sentence “oh, but IRC still
> *exists*” has come up too many times in the last few months while
> introducing engineers to the Zephyr project.

That's actually very good comment. Trying to close my eyes and
make a reminiscence of that, following comes out of me: "There's an
idea to make a *support* channel on Slack for all the "IRC lives??"
people." Sounds great, and especially that there're people who want to
do support both on IRC and elsewhere.

The more dissemination we have, the better. Just randomly searched for
"zephyr rtos" (no hope for just "zephyr") on Reddit, and
disappointedly, #1 hit is still the post for 1.9 release I made a
year ago. If we can't make semi-regular posts on popular IT crowd sites
like Reddit, let's at least create a Slack channel. Or can do both
actually. Or all of them:

1. Development channel on IRC
2. I believe there is/was something like #zephyr-bluetooth on IRC too.
   I never understood why, but I heard there was.
3. Slack channel.
4. Reddit subreddit
... more

So "do all the things"?


> but I think we
> ought to be honest with ourselves that this is really what we are
> arguing about.


[]

Since you deleted most of the rest of the context in this thread so far, I'm not sure what including the above followed by "[]" means.

Thanks,
Marti


--
Best Regards,
Paul

Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro
http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog


Re: [Zephyr-tsc] [Zephyr-devel] Highlights from the TSC meeting during ELCE

Carles Cufi
 

Hi Paul,

-----Original Message-----
From: tsc@lists.zephyrproject.org <tsc@lists.zephyrproject.org> On
Behalf Of Paul Sokolovsky
Sent: 29 October 2018 22:45
To: Marti Bolivar <marti@foundries.io>
Cc: Flavio Ceolin <flavio.ceolin@intel.com>; Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
<inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com>; Nashif, Anas <anas.nashif@intel.com>;
devel@lists.zephyrproject.org; tsc@lists.zephyrproject.org
Subject: Re: [Zephyr-tsc] [Zephyr-devel] Highlights from the TSC meeting
during ELCE

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:11:04 +0000
"Marti Bolivar" <marti@foundries.io> wrote:

[]

Slack is a proprietary de facto standard in this context, at least in
the west.
Love that argument. So, perhaps we shouldn't look for easy ways and
embrace diversity in general, and look for WeChat that you mentioned or
QQ?

From Carles next mail:

IRC is not only a tool for core contributors, maintainers and TSC
members, but also users of the RTOS. The sentence “oh, but IRC still
*exists*” has come up too many times in the last few months while
introducing engineers to the Zephyr project.
That's actually very good comment. Trying to close my eyes and make a
reminiscence of that, following comes out of me: "There's an idea to
make a *support* channel on Slack for all the "IRC lives??"
people." Sounds great, and especially that there're people who want to
do support both on IRC and elsewhere.

The more dissemination we have, the better. Just randomly searched for
"zephyr rtos" (no hope for just "zephyr") on Reddit, and disappointedly,
#1 hit is still the post for 1.9 release I made a year ago. If we can't
make semi-regular posts on popular IT crowd sites like Reddit, let's at
least create a Slack channel. Or can do both actually. Or all of them:
For what is worth, I (relatively) regularly comment and post on Reddit about Zephyr. On r/embedded to be precise, but also on other subreddits.


1. Development channel on IRC
2. I believe there is/was something like #zephyr-bluetooth on IRC too.
I never understood why, but I heard there was.
3. Slack channel.
4. Reddit subreddit
... more
Not sure if I get this, but I think you are suggesting we combine both IRC and Slack. While I don't think that's the greatest of situations to find ourselves in, I would have no problem using both (I already do in fact). But then we'd need the devs to also frequent the Slack channel, otherwise it'd be a bit pointless.

Carles


Re: [Zephyr-tsc] [Zephyr-devel] Highlights from the TSC meeting during ELCE

Paul Sokolovsky
 

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:11:04 +0000
"Marti Bolivar" <marti@foundries.io> wrote:

[]

Slack is a proprietary de facto standard in this context, at least in
the west.
Love that argument. So, perhaps we shouldn't look for easy ways and
embrace diversity in general, and look for WeChat that you mentioned or
QQ?

From Carles next mail:

IRC is not only a tool for core contributors, maintainers and TSC
members, but also users of the RTOS. The sentence “oh, but IRC still
*exists*” has come up too many times in the last few months while
introducing engineers to the Zephyr project.
That's actually very good comment. Trying to close my eyes and
make a reminiscence of that, following comes out of me: "There's an
idea to make a *support* channel on Slack for all the "IRC lives??"
people." Sounds great, and especially that there're people who want to
do support both on IRC and elsewhere.

The more dissemination we have, the better. Just randomly searched for
"zephyr rtos" (no hope for just "zephyr") on Reddit, and
disappointedly, #1 hit is still the post for 1.9 release I made a
year ago. If we can't make semi-regular posts on popular IT crowd sites
like Reddit, let's at least create a Slack channel. Or can do both
actually. Or all of them:

1. Development channel on IRC
2. I believe there is/was something like #zephyr-bluetooth on IRC too.
I never understood why, but I heard there was.
3. Slack channel.
4. Reddit subreddit
... more

but I think we
ought to be honest with ourselves that this is really what we are
arguing about.

[]

--
Best Regards,
Paul

Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro
http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog


Re: [Zephyr-tsc] [Zephyr-devel] Highlights from the TSC meeting during ELCE

Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky <inaky.perez-gonzalez@...>
 


My replies with IPG>> prefixed below


From: tsc@... [tsc@...] on behalf of Marti Bolivar [marti@...]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 1:11 PM
To: Ceolin, Flavio
Cc: Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky; Nashif, Anas; devel@...; tsc@...
Subject: Re: [Zephyr-tsc] [Zephyr-devel] Highlights from the TSC meeting during ELCE

Hi,

I'd like to discuss some counterpoints.

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 6:38 PM Flavio Ceolin <flavio.ceolin@...> wrote:
"Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" <inaky.perez-gonzalez@...> writes:

> Thanks for the summary, Anas
>
>
>>> 4.       We are considering a new communication platform to replace IRC. Candidates are Slack and gitter. This has not been decided yet, if you have any feedback, please let us know.
>
> I'd like to ask what is the rationale behind IRC replacement, what is trying to be solved?
>
> IRC is:
> - easy to access for everyone from every platform

In all honesty I think

s/platform/Linux distribution/

And I agree.

IRC is not "easy" across platforms in a modern sense of the word, unless you use irccloud (which, full disclosure, I do, after changing from ERC within emacs by way of various other clients starting with Ircle on pre-OS X Macs back in the day).

Note irccloud is not free software.

IPG >> I'll admit I haven't used windows for a long time, but a quick google:


IPG>> many of them open source; and I can tell you pidgin (the client I use in Linux) works in Windows supporting almost every single messaging protocol reasonably open (and some propietary ones).

> - well integrated into everyone's favourite messaging client

"Everyone's"?

IPG>> I'll be quite surprised a successful multi-protocol messaging client is written that doesn't support IRC

IRC clients that look good on a modern desktop (again, other than irccloud) are lacking. (Yup, that's an opinion.) Mobile support without irccloud is also lacking. 

IPG>> pidgin for Windows/Linux/Mac/Chrome, mutter for IRC on iOS  (can't talk to that because I don't IRC from my cellphone)

And it's not like irccloud is exactly a household name.

Taking "everyone" by raw numbers, we'd be looking for WhatsApp,  WeChat, etc. integration, and I don't think their clients can be called "well" integrated with IRC.

IPG>> each of those is a private/proprietary network (for example); I for one would not install WeChat in my cellphone after all the free publicity they've gained courtesy of the Chinese Government. Now, if we are talking being able to send notifications to those networks, yes, why not? but forcing any of those to be the central forum for open discussion? disagreed.



Re: [Zephyr-tsc] [Zephyr-devel] Highlights from the TSC meeting during ELCE

Marti Bolivar <marti@...>
 

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 8:41 PM Cufi, Carles <Carles.Cufi@...> wrote:

Adding to Martí’s points here.

 

Can’t seem to break lines with Outlook so I will need to use another color. Apologies for that, but I blame whoever introduced HTML to this thread.

 



My fault (?). I replied from mobile.


Re: [Zephyr-tsc] [Zephyr-devel] Highlights from the TSC meeting during ELCE

Carles Cufi
 

Adding to Martí’s points here.

 

Can’t seem to break lines with Outlook so I will need to use another color. Apologies for that, but I blame whoever introduced HTML to this thread.

 

From: tsc@... <tsc@...> On Behalf Of Marti Bolivar
Sent: 29 October 2018 21:11
To: Flavio Ceolin <flavio.ceolin@...>
Cc: Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky <inaky.perez-gonzalez@...>; Nashif, Anas <anas.nashif@...>; devel@...; tsc@...
Subject: Re: [Zephyr-tsc] [Zephyr-devel] Highlights from the TSC meeting during ELCE

 

Hi,

 

I'd like to discuss some counterpoints.

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 6:38 PM Flavio Ceolin <flavio.ceolin@...> wrote:

"Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" <inaky.perez-gonzalez@...> writes:

> Thanks for the summary, Anas
>
>
>>> 4.       We are considering a new communication platform to replace IRC. Candidates are Slack and gitter. This has not been decided yet, if you have any feedback, please let us know.
>
> I'd like to ask what is the rationale behind IRC replacement, what is trying to be solved?
>
> IRC is:
> - easy to access for everyone from every platform

 

In all honesty I think

 

s/platform/Linux distribution/

 

And I agree.

 

IRC is not "easy" across platforms in a modern sense of the word, unless you use irccloud (which, full disclosure, I do, after changing from ERC within emacs by way of various other clients starting with Ircle on pre-OS X Macs back in the day).

 

Note irccloud is not free software.

 

Not only that, but IRC doesn’t provide you with a permanent connection unless you pay for money in one way or another, unless you use something like matrix and that is not very pretty.

 

 

> - well integrated into everyone's favourite messaging client

 

"Everyone's"?

 

I think this statement also has some Linux bias. Zephyr is a Linux foundation project, but it's also important to be able to develop using Zephyr and collaborate with other users on all supported platforms, and convenience and familiarity do have some practical weight here.

 

IRC clients that look good on a modern desktop (again, other than irccloud) are lacking. (Yup, that's an opinion.) Mobile support without irccloud is also lacking. 

 

Again, I completely agree with Martí here. While HexChat is usable, it definitely does not fit the category of “favourite messaging client” for most people. Mobile support is a pretty fundamental feature these days, and our users do not currently have access to it unless they use irccloud or a similar service.

 

And it's not like irccloud is exactly a household name.

 

No, but to be fair, it is very reliable and dependable.

 

Taking "everyone" by raw numbers, we'd be looking for WhatsApp,  WeChat, etc. integration, and I don't think their clients can be called "well" integrated with IRC.

 

So the above statement seems suspect to me. 

 

That said, preferring open and battle-tested standards is usually a good idea in an open source project, at least so long as they get the job done well enough.

 

And as long as they provide the functionality we need (i.e. permanent connections) for free for users. Not to mention the advanced functionality available on Slack that simply will never make it into IRC.

 

 

> - does not depend on a single corporation (looking at you, Slack)

 

Slack is a proprietary de facto standard in this context, at least in the west. IRC is a venerable and interoperable open standard with usability issues and mindshare problems depending on who you're talking to. That seems to be the real crux of the matter here.

 

There's good arguments on either side of this debate, but I think we ought to be honest with ourselves that this is really what we are arguing about.

 

I think we should carefully consider what our users would like to use as well. IRC is not only a tool for core contributors, maintainers and TSC members, but also users of the RTOS. The sentence “oh, but IRC still *exists*” has come up too many times in the last few months while introducing engineers to the Zephyr project.

Now, how to actually do that is not trivial, but I’m thinking perhaps a poll amongst users of some sort?

 



yeah, easy to script, clients are lightweight, ...

 

Full of spam (and, let's be frank, some of that spam is hate speech), it's 2018 and slack is lightweight enough for all the laptops we tend to use, lacks native support for anything that isn't plain text, ...

 

 

Without a good reason
I'm totally in favor of keep using IRC.

 

I hope the above is some fodder for discussion on why this is not a no-brainer decision.

 

I hope so too. While I personally have nothing against IRC and it pretty much does the job for me, not everyone wants to set up a proxy or pay for irccloud in order to get the functionality they need.

 

Thanks,

Marti

 


>
>
>

Regards,
Flavio Ceolin



Re: Highlights from the TSC meeting during ELCE

Marti Bolivar <marti@...>
 

Hi,

I'd like to discuss some counterpoints.

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 6:38 PM Flavio Ceolin <flavio.ceolin@...> wrote:
"Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" <inaky.perez-gonzalez@...> writes:

> Thanks for the summary, Anas
>
>
>>> 4.       We are considering a new communication platform to replace IRC. Candidates are Slack and gitter. This has not been decided yet, if you have any feedback, please let us know.
>
> I'd like to ask what is the rationale behind IRC replacement, what is trying to be solved?
>
> IRC is:
> - easy to access for everyone from every platform

In all honesty I think

s/platform/Linux distribution/

And I agree.

IRC is not "easy" across platforms in a modern sense of the word, unless you use irccloud (which, full disclosure, I do, after changing from ERC within emacs by way of various other clients starting with Ircle on pre-OS X Macs back in the day).

Note irccloud is not free software.

> - well integrated into everyone's favourite messaging client

"Everyone's"?

I think this statement also has some Linux bias. Zephyr is a Linux foundation project, but it's also important to be able to develop using Zephyr and collaborate with other users on all supported platforms, and convenience and familiarity do have some practical weight here.

IRC clients that look good on a modern desktop (again, other than irccloud) are lacking. (Yup, that's an opinion.) Mobile support without irccloud is also lacking. 

And it's not like irccloud is exactly a household name.

Taking "everyone" by raw numbers, we'd be looking for WhatsApp,  WeChat, etc. integration, and I don't think their clients can be called "well" integrated with IRC.

So the above statement seems suspect to me. 

That said, preferring open and battle-tested standards is usually a good idea in an open source project, at least so long as they get the job done well enough.


> - does not depend on a single corporation (looking at you, Slack)

Slack is a proprietary de facto standard in this context, at least in the west. IRC is a venerable and interoperable open standard with usability issues and mindshare problems depending on who you're talking to. That seems to be the real crux of the matter here.

There's good arguments on either side of this debate, but I think we ought to be honest with ourselves that this is really what we are arguing about.



yeah, easy to script, clients are lightweight, ...

Full of spam (and, let's be frank, some of that spam is hate speech), it's 2018 and slack is lightweight enough for all the laptops we tend to use, lacks native support for anything that isn't plain text, ...


Without a good reason
I'm totally in favor of keep using IRC.

I hope the above is some fodder for discussion on why this is not a no-brainer decision.

Thanks,
Marti


>
>
>

Regards,
Flavio Ceolin




Re: Does the EFR32_slwstk6061a port work?

Christian Taedcke
 

Hello Jake,

Am Montag, den 29.10.2018, 18:03 +0000 schrieb Kumar Gala:
On Oct 29, 2018, at 5:00 PM, Jake Baldwin <jake.a.baldwin@gmail.com
wrote:
The EFR32_SLWSTK6061A board is very similar to the
EFR32_SLWSTK6000B. The microcontroller uart0, led, and button pins
are exactly the same. Even though the microcontrollers are
different they share the same flash and RAM starting location the
same peripheral memory addresses. So I figured I would try to build
the example project for the 6061A and load it onto the 6000B. But
it didn't work.

...
gpioa is correctly listed at 0x4000a000 but the higher level group
starts at 0x4000A400 which is believe is incorrect.

Two questions: Does this look like an error? Has anyone loaded this
onto a 6061A and seen the hello world message print in a console?
Hopefully Christian can chime in if the latest code is working for
him or not.
I just tried samples/hello_world from the current master on the
efr32_slwstk6061a and it is working fine:

***** Booting Zephyr OS zephyr-v1.13.0-1384-gf2b9cc62bb *****
Hello World! efr32_slwstk6061a

Also samples/basic/button works as expected.

Since your board has a Mighty Gecko, it might be better to start from
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/9042 instead of the
Flex Gecko, which is used on the EFR32_SLWSTK6061A.

Regards,
Christian


Re: [Zephyr-tsc] Highlights from the TSC meeting during ELCE

Paul Sokolovsky
 

Hello Anas,

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:51:29 +0000
"Nashif, Anas" <anas.nashif@intel.com> wrote:

Hi,

The TSC had a full day F2F meeting with very good attendance and lots
of topics to discuss. Here is a list of some the most significant
decisions:
[]

2. To improve the review process we will introduce the
following changes:
Great!


a. Helper bots to help with tagging PRs and giving guidance to
experiences and new PR authors.

b. Categorization of PRs (Hotfix, Trivial, Maintainer,
Security, TSC) and setting minimal review times for a PR in each
category (more on that will be posted in the Wiki)

c. Address the lack of reviewers and slow process of getting
PRs reviewed in time. This is a major issue we have, we need more
reviewers and reviews. Do not have much details to share here, but we
are looking into introducing a system and workflow that would
encourage developers and contributors to review more. Stay tuned.

3. We will start a weekly PR backlog meeting (on IRC on
teleconference)
That's great! But what does "on IRC on teleconference" mean? Is it on
IRC or not?

to give community members the opportunity to address
concerns regarding their contributions and to raise awareness about
stale PRs and changes.

4. We are considering a new communication platform to replace
The moment I've read this line, I felt nice butterflies in my stomach.
Here it comes. Finally! The ugly zoom.us tool used for all Zephyr
meetings will be gone! That tool has ~ zero Linux browsers support. I
have to hack a URL just to be able into the meeting, and then I see
almost nothing - no participants list, no chat, no nothing. Sound
quality is also below the level of similar tools. This tool actively
discourages participation in Zephyr meetings for Linux users.

(Oh, I was suggested that there's a run-on-your-own-computer client,
but at the age of meltdowns that seems like a brave, if not crazy,
idea).

But instead...

IRC.
IRC! We're talking about replacing IRC. OMG. We need more proprietary
tools to get us into a nice cozy cave.

Candidates are Slack and gitter. This has not been decided yet,
if you have any feedback, please let us know.


More details in the upcoming weeks.

Anas

--
Best Regards,
Paul

Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro
http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog

2721 - 2740 of 8041