Re: debug with mcuboot

Marti Bolivar <marti@...>

#5743

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 9:12 AM David Brown <david.brown@linaro.org> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 01:46:18AM -0700, robert.konc@controlmatik.eu wrote:

How could I create image that will be signed that mcuboot will recognise it as
valid image.
I wuild like to sign image with imgtool.py in ninja script after build (target
all) was succesfull.This seems to have gone unanswered.I somehow have trouble believing the date stamp on the original email.
Clogged internet pipes, perhaps.


For my use, I've always had an "outer" makefile that invokved the
cmake and ninja build on the Zephyr target (as well as mcuboot), and
then used imgtool.py and possibly assemble.py to make my resulting
image.

This probably could be added to the Zephyr build, at least the signing
part, but solving the multi-image build is possibly more an area for
something like West to solve.Multi-image build is a build system issue, not a west issue. Nordic is
working on this, for reference:

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/compare/master...hakonfam:mulit_image_mcuboot_support

Also just FYI, west already supports building, signing, and flashing
MCUboot images. For example:

# Build and flash MCUboot itself for reel_board
west build -b reel_board -s mcuboot/boot/zephyr/ -d build-mcuboot
west flash -d build-mcuboot/

# Build and flash hello_world as an MCUboot chain-loadable image
west build -b reel_board -s zephyr/samples/hello_world/ -d build-hello
-- -DCONFIG_BOOTLOADER_MCUBOOT=y
west sign -t imgtool -d build-hello/ -- --key mcuboot/root-rsa-2048.pem
west flash --hex-file zephyr.signed.hex -d build-hello/

The above assumes your runner prefers flashing .hex files, which is
true of nrfjprog and pyocd at least. You can do it with .bin files too
but it's a little more annoying and I'd like to deprecate some of the
command line flags.

The value of "west sign -t imgtool" compared to using imgtool directly
is that it pulls the values for the --align, --header-size, and
--slot-size options out of the build directory by inspecting Kconfig
and device tree output files.


This will become even more of an issue with multiple images beyond
just the bootloader, such as multiple CPUs or a trusted execution
environment (TF-M style).Hopefully something like the above can continue working in these
contexts, suitably extended if necessary.

Thanks,
Marti


David

Re: CMake comments to HTML? (PR #9947 CMake build architecture documentation)

Marc Herbert

#5742

There's an actual (and draft) PR now in case anyone else is interested in following this: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/13805

Still just a demo.

Off the list now.

From: <devel@...> on behalf of Marc Herbert <marc.herbert@...>
Date: Monday, 11 February 2019 at 20:46
To: "Nashif, Anas" <anas.nashif@...>, "devel@..." <devel@...>
Cc: "Kinder, David B" <david.b.kinder@...>
Subject: Re: [Zephyr-devel] CMake comments to HTML? (PR #9947 CMake build architecture documentation)

Thanks Anas!

Correct no PR yet, sorry for the confusion. This is still at the early prototype stage however there's already a demo git commit - the one that produced the screenshot - linked from https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/9947 and it should work "out of the box" on Linux. Ideas, suggestions and any other kind of feedback from anyone somewhat familiar with CMake or Sphinx and brave enough to review a few TODOs, FIXMEs and other question marks would be great already, thanks in advance. Github supports commenting on volatile commits for implementation details but higher level discussions are probably best "centralized" in an issue: 9947 or some (new?) other?

Cheers,

Marc

From: "Nashif, Anas" <anas.nashif@...>
Date: Monday, 11 February 2019 at 16:50
To: Marc Herbert <marc.herbert@...>, "devel@..." <devel@...>
Cc: "Kinder, David B" <david.b.kinder@...>
Subject: RE: CMake comments to HTML? (PR #9947 CMake build architecture documentation)

I think this looks great.

9947 is not a PR, it is an enhancement issue, got me confused for a second. So it is an open enhancement issue with not PR associated with it, if you have something , send a PR please.

Anas

Show quoted text

From: devel@... [mailto:devel@...] On Behalf Of Marc Herbert
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 7:45 PM
To: devel@...
Cc: Kinder, David B <david.b.kinder@...>
Subject: [Zephyr-devel] CMake comments to HTML? (PR #9947 CMake build architecture documentation)

I tried the “moderncmakedomain” sphinx extension to prototype extracting CMake comments into html and it seems to work, see screenshot and PR below.

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/9947

Dave (cc:) seems to like it.

Just a quick hack for now, Linux only. Two questions:

- Is the approach generally acceptable? Notably: is sphinx-moderncmakedomain acceptable as an additional pip3 requirement?

- If yes then is Sebastian's PR #9947 the correct place for this? I asked him privately but he’s either off or busy. If yes then let’s discuss there and not on the mailing-list.

Cheers,

Marc

Begin forwarded message:

Subject: Re: [zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr] CMake build architecture documentation (#9947)

Date: 11 February 2019 at 16:21:45 GMT-8

This is what the above commit produces:

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

Re: Seeing and running what CI does (was: CODEOWNERS check in CI)

Marc Herbert

#5741

Quick update.

1. [*] "yay!"... except it's not clear why tests run by Shippable are not deterministic: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/13803 randconfig maybe?  I digress.Non-determinism found and explained:  https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/13973

Thanks to the reviewers for the very quick reviews.

2. As the opposite experience, I also got for another work in progress / hack / draft PR:
     Documentation build with 'make htmldocs' failed.
... and that's it; no logs or error message whatsoever, just this line. I have some guesses of what fails in CI while everything works for me (it is a documentation _hack_) but zero information on what exactly or how.
Still unclear.

3. In the same draft PR as 2. I "forgot" a license header in a temporary file.  While it does not provide the command and log, the zephyrbot told me in very nice terms what was wrong. What's still confusing however is why the zephyr-ci-tools/scripts/check_compliance.py [-m Licence] script which I did run before pushing keeps telling me everything is fine and didn't save me the round trip time (and embarrassment). A typo would also cost (another) round-trip. This script really looks like the check zephyrbot runs but... it's apparently not or not quite?
Mystery solved: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/ci-tools/pull/25 

Another mystery being fixed by Ulf: CODEOWNERS failing locally but not in CI
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/ci-tools/pull/23
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/13978

Any layer of indirection in CI creates distance between developers and CI and makes developers care less about failures that don't affect them directly. Developers are not "consumers" and the vast majority seems to prefer having too much information than too little and solve problems by themselves but if the only option they have is not to care about some failures then they don't.
 
There may be reasons for not all CI details to be available and/or easy to reproduce but they don't apply to stuff like building docs or license checks or other simple sanitycheck.
 
1. https://app.shippable.com/github/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/runs/35577
2. & 3. https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/13805

Re: debug with mcuboot

David Brown

#5740

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 01:46:18AM -0700, robert.konc@controlmatik.eu wrote:

How could I create image that will be signed that mcuboot will recognise it as
valid image.
I wuild like to sign image with imgtool.py in ninja script after build (target
all) was succesfull.This seems to have gone unanswered.

For my use, I've always had an "outer" makefile that invokved the
cmake and ninja build on the Zephyr target (as well as mcuboot), and
then used imgtool.py and possibly assemble.py to make my resulting
image.

This probably could be added to the Zephyr build, at least the signing
part, but solving the multi-image build is possibly more an area for
something like West to solve.

This will become even more of an issue with multiple images beyond
just the bootloader, such as multiple CPUs or a trusted execution
environment (TF-M style).

David

Re: k_poll_signal_raise linker error

Ramakrishna Pallala <ramakrishna.pallala@...>

#5739

Issue resolved.

Show quoted text

From: devel@... [mailto:devel@...] On Behalf Of Ramakrishna Pallala
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 2:11 PM
To: devel@...
Subject: [Zephyr-devel] k_poll_signal_raise linker error

Hi, is anyone facing following linking error:

In function `k_poll_signal_raise':

/home/rpallala/ssg-otc/Zephyr/zephyr-pm/test/zephyr/samples/hello_world/build/zephyr/include/generated/syscalls/kernel.h:141: undefined reference to `_impl_k_poll_signal_raise'

collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status

zephyr/CMakeFiles/zephyr_prebuilt.dir/build.make:94: recipe for target 'zephyr/zephyr_prebuilt.elf' failed

make[2]: *** [zephyr/zephyr_prebuilt.elf] Error 1

CMakeFiles/Makefile2:452: recipe for target 'zephyr/CMakeFiles/zephyr_prebuilt.dir/all' failed

make[1]: *** [zephyr/CMakeFiles/zephyr_prebuilt.dir/all] Error 2

Makefile:83: recipe for target 'all' failed

Thanks,

Ram

k_poll_signal_raise linker error

Ramakrishna Pallala <ramakrishna.pallala@...>

#5738

Hi, is anyone facing following linking error:

In function `k_poll_signal_raise':

/home/rpallala/ssg-otc/Zephyr/zephyr-pm/test/zephyr/samples/hello_world/build/zephyr/include/generated/syscalls/kernel.h:141: undefined reference to `_impl_k_poll_signal_raise'

collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status

zephyr/CMakeFiles/zephyr_prebuilt.dir/build.make:94: recipe for target 'zephyr/zephyr_prebuilt.elf' failed

make[2]: *** [zephyr/zephyr_prebuilt.elf] Error 1

CMakeFiles/Makefile2:452: recipe for target 'zephyr/CMakeFiles/zephyr_prebuilt.dir/all' failed

make[1]: *** [zephyr/CMakeFiles/zephyr_prebuilt.dir/all] Error 2

Makefile:83: recipe for target 'all' failed

Thanks,

Ram

Zephyr Project Newsletter Q1 2019

Zephyr Project

#5737

Welcome to the Zephyr Project Newsletter! As the Zephyr community continues to expand and innovate we've added this quarterly update to the growing list of resources and tools available to our ecosystem to stay connected. In this first edition we are excited to bring you updates on what's in store for Zephyr OS in 2019, provide a glimpse into some of the work currently underway in the community and share ways you can get involved in the Zephyr Project.

About the Zephyr Project

Get Zephyr OS

A Look Ahead to 2019: Zephyr Project Update

As a vendor neutral open source project we embrace transparency and responsiveness to the needs of the community. Based on feedback from our contributor community, Technical Steering Committee (TSC) and the Governing Board, the Zephyr Project has a number of exciting technical initiatives, announcements and events planned for 2019. All of which are based on our mission to build a best in breed real-time operating system (RTOS) for resource constrained environments built with functional safety and security in mind. This year watch for:

Zephyr OS 1.14 with Long-Term Support (LTS)
Functional Safety Certifications
Products Powered by Zephyr OS

For more information about the Zephyr Project's 2019 plans see Governing Board Chair Amy Occhialino's (Intel) blog post discussing her goals for the project in 2019.

To hear more from TSC Chairperson Anas Nashif (Intel) about the plans for Zephyr OS in 2019 and the focus on functional safety please view his presentation from OpenIoT Summit EU 2018.

Events and Meetings

Zephyr Project at Embedded World 2019

The Zephyr Project is exhibiting at Embedded World 2019! Be sure to visit the Zephyr Project booth in Hall 4: Stand no. 4-170 to see technical demonstrations, learn about the latest products powered by Zephyr and meet the community behind the technology. Please see the Zephyr Blog for full information on the Zephyr presence at the show.

For the full list of events where the Zephyr Community will be present, please see our Events Page. To get your event listed on our website please contact the Zephyr Project.

Zephyr 1.14 with LTS is Coming Soon

The Zephyr Project is currently working towards its first long-term support (LTS) release of Zephyr OS in April 2019. Zephyr OS 1.14 will be supported for 2 years and is intended to give product makers and developers new features and functionality with added stability and regression risk reduction. To view the progress of Zephyr OS 1.14 visit our GitHub page.

If you would like to contribute to Zephyr OS 1.14 please consider fixing bugs, adding documentation or signing up to help maintain the subsystems, API's and drivers that matter to you by joining the TSC's weekly open calls.

Following this release the Zephyr Project will return to its traditional 12 week release cadence.

Get the Latest Release Now

Products Powered by Zephyr OS

Each week, new products powered by Zephyr OS are entering the market and providing unique and innovative examples of how this open source RTOS is making an impact. Product makers are increasingly choosing Zephyr OS because of the benefits it provides. Take a look at just a few examples of recent product launches using Zephyr OS. To get your Zephyr OS powered product or company listed please contact the Zephyr Project Marketing Team.

Adero

Adero is a system of Bluetooth-enabled tags that communicate with one another and you. The system comes together in the Adero app where you can build your smart bags, track your tagged things, and create reminders to keep them all together. Read more here.

Papyr by Electronut Labs

Powered by the Zephyr OS and Nordic’s nRF52840 SoC, Papyr is an ultra low power connected epaper display. It supports both Bluetooth LE (BLE5, BLE Mesh) and 802.15.4 (Thread, Zigbee) connectivity, and can be controlled via a mobile app. Read More about Papyr h ere

Mark 2 by ProGlove

This 'smart wearable' addresses critical barcode scanning problems and ensures greater efficiency, ergonomics, quality and process reliability. MARK 2 is designed for use in production, logistics and retail. Read more here.

Zephyr Project includes a fully-qualified and production-ready Bluetooth LE stack

Thanks to leadership from Zephyr Project Platinum Member Nordic Semiconductor and Adero, the Zephyr Project now includes the world’s first open-source, fully-qualified, and production-ready Bluetooth LE stack. Nordic's qualification of the Bluetooth LE stack in Zephyr enables end-product makers to launch Bluetooth products using the native Bluetooth LE support in the Zephyr RTOS. While Zephyr is not the only RTOS to include an open source Bluetooth LE Host or Link Layer, the Zephyr Bluetooth LE stack is the only one with all required components qualified and available as open source. A complete, qualified Bluetooth LE stack (consisting of a Host, Link Layer, and Physical layer) is needed to list an end product using Bluetooth technology. (Refer to the Zephyr Host QDID: 119517 and Link Layer QDID: 101395.)

Zephyr Project now supports over 150 boards!

View supported boards here. To add your board to the list please review the porting guide and contribution guide for more details.

Zephyr Community Spotlight: Maureen Helm

The depth of technical expertise and dedication of the community is one of the many areas where Zephyr Project shines. In each newsletter Zephyr Project will showcase members of our TSC to highlight their contributions to the ecosystem and share their thoughts on key initiatives underway in the community. This edition we are proud to spotlight Maureen Helm, MCU Software Architect at NXP Semiconductors and Zephyr Project Maintainer,

Maureen Helm (NXP) discussing vendor HALs in Zephyr OS at Embedded Linux Conference Europe.

Describe your role in the Zephyr Project and how you became involved?

I represent NXP in the TSC and maintain several areas of the tree, including the Arm architecture, sensor subsystem, and NXP SoCs, boards, and drivers. I got involved in the Zephyr Project early on when NXP (Freescale, at the time) was evaluating whether to join as a founding member. Although this was my first foray into collaborative open source, I was quickly sold, having personally experienced the pain of developing and maintaining an in-house proprietary RTOS.

Looking forward, what features or functionality are you the most excited about seeing/working on in Zephyr OS in 2019?

I’m looking forward to the continued expansion of connectivity features such as BLE and Zigbee, new security features with the introduction of Arm v8m devices, and richer development tools enabled by the new “west” meta-tool.

As a maintainer, what does your day to day participation in the project look like?

I aim to review pull requests in the morning, 1) to make sure it gets done every day, and 2) to take advantage of when the European community is still online. I then try to reserve the afternoon for development work and bug fixing. Meetings and other interruptions inevitably get in the way, but as a general rule it helps me to keep pull requests moving and still make time for writing code.

What are some of the most important qualities for a successful maintainer?

It’s important to give specific, actionable feedback, ask questions, and explain why you’re requesting changes. If you can’t articulate why you don’t like something and how it should be changed, then reconsider your feedback. This is, in a way, similar to writing good commit messages, because if you can’t articulate why you’re changing something, then maybe you shouldn’t be changing it.

What advice do you have for Zephyr Project contributors who may be considering becoming a maintainer?

Start joining the weekly TSC meeting, interact with the community on Slack/IRC and the mailing list, and start reviewing code. You don’t need to be a maintainer or employed by a member company to participate!

Is there anything else you would like to add?

I’m thrilled to see how far the Zephyr Project has come since it launched three years ago. We started with just four boards and a handful of contributors, and have grown to over 150 boards, 439 contributors, and 1000 forks! Thank you!

Get Involved

Zephyr Project is a diverse and inclusive community dedicated to building a vendor neutral ecosystem around Zephyr OS. We welcome contributions of all types as we build a truly open source RTOS to meet the needs of developers and users inventing, building and connecting the Internet of Things. Join us.

Join the Slack Channel

Contribute to Zephyr OS

Contact Us

Copyright © 2019 Zephyr Project, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
1 Letterman Drive
Building D, Suite D4700
San Francisco, CA 94129
Phone/Fax: +1 415 723 9709
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

This email was sent to devel@...
why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences
Zephyr Project · 1 Letterman Drive · Building D, Suite D4700 · San Francisco, CA 94129 · USA

LE pair disconnected

Tommy Lin (林志聰) <Tommy.Lin@...>

#5736

Hi Ryan Erickson,

We use zephyr source code(samples/bluetooth/hci_uart) , and type following commands:

After then , we can find out device(named “2019bt”) in our phone , and we can pair it.

But “2019bt” will be disconnected after about two second at connected.

Could you give us some suggestions

Thank You.

Re: Mesh Provisioning Publisher - Setting & Binding in application #bluetoothmesh #zephyrbluetoothmesh

Johan Hedberg

#5735

Hi Billy,

On 26 Feb 2019, at 9.47, William Fish <William.fish@manulytica.com> wrote:
I'm new to this and struggling with BLE Mesh provisioning and need help, I am using Micro-bit (nrf51) which struggle to provision via BlueZ meshctl as they have such little memory hence i am attempting to configure the mesh within the application.

All appears okay with subscriptions and I can send unsolicited massages () but i haven't managed to configure a model to publish. When i run the following I get a -16 error (EBUSY 16    /* Mount device busy */)If I were to guess, you’re calling the configuration client APIs without waiting for the responses (passing NULL for the response parameters, like the status) and some previous call has consumed all segmented message sending contexts (CONFIG_BT_MESH_TX_SEG_MSG_COUNT). If that’s the case you’ll either need to wait for the previous operation to complete, or increase these contexts. If you enabled logging (CONFIG_BT_DEBUG_LOG=y) you should also see an error message related to the reason why EBUSY is returned. I realise this may not be feasible however, due to the limited amount of memory on the micro:bit.

Johan

Re: Seeing and running what CI does (was: CODEOWNERS check in CI)

Marc Herbert

#5734

Hi,

As a funny coincidence I experienced three (!) CI issues relevant to this discussion today:

1. Some one-line "typo" fix failed to link some C code for a totally unrelated reason. Shippable seems to be the only CI element that provides complete logs. So I could instantly find the error in the logs and the next second someone on Slack pointed me at the candidate (and unrelated) fix. Searching github issues for "zephyr_write" also finds the candidate fix instantly, yay! [*]

2. As the opposite experience, I also got for another work in progress / hack / draft PR:

Documentation build with 'make htmldocs' failed.

... and that's it; no logs or error message whatsoever, just this line. I have some guesses of what fails in CI while everything works for me (it is a documentation _hack_) but zero information on what exactly or how.

3. In the same draft PR as 2. I "forgot" a license header in a temporary file. While it does not provide the command and log, the zephyrbot told me in very nice terms what was wrong. What's still confusing however is why the zephyr-ci-tools/scripts/check_compliance.py [-m Licence] script which I did run before pushing keeps telling me everything is fine and didn't save me the round trip time (and embarrassment). A typo would also cost (another) round-trip. This script really looks like the check zephyrbot runs but... it's apparently not or not quite?

Any layer of indirection in CI creates distance between developers and CI and makes developers care less about failures that don't affect them directly. Developers are not "consumers" and the vast majority seems to prefer having too much information than too little and solve problems by themselves but if the only option they have is not to care about some failures then they don't.

There may be reasons for not all CI details to be available and/or easy to reproduce but they don't apply to stuff like building docs or license checks or other simple sanitycheck.

1. https://app.shippable.com/github/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/runs/35577

2. & 3. https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/13805

[*] "yay!"... except it's not clear why tests run by Shippable are not deterministic: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/13803 randconfig maybe? I digress.

Marc

From: Marc Herbert <marc.herbert@...>
Date: Monday, 25 February 2019 at 22:28
To: "Nashif, Anas" <anas.nashif@...>, Björn Stenberg <bjorn@...>, "devel@..." <devel@...>
Subject: Re: [Zephyr-devel] Seeing and running what CI does (was: CODEOWNERS check in CI)

Hi,

A couple things I find confusing:

- There's only the ("beautified") output but not the commands that produced them as is typical in CI, so no obvious indication of what to do to test the next git push and make sure it will actually fix the issues before pushing again.

- The comments with the output are typically some distance away from the red/green "traffic lights" with unrelated stuff in between

- The "Details" buttons on the other hand *are* in the traffic lights and seem really designed to point at the output, I think most people expect them to but they point at the documentation instead.

> you do not have to look at the actual CI log which might be verbose and misleading

Well (most of) the actual CI log is or should be what one gets anyway when running the sanitycheck / compliance.py / etc. scripts locally so if that output is confusing then users will just submit patches to make it better (as I just did) and keep everything consistent.

The less difference and distance between users and CI, the better.

> The actual output is always available in a comment posted by zephyrbot in the same PR. The comment is updated for every run

It's interesting that this comment preserves some review history unlike the aggressive way the "traffic lights" in particular and github in general rewrite and bury review history. So this is Good but unfortunately inconsistent with (Bad) github so a bit confusing again. For instance it's difficult to relate the history of this comment to the corresponding git pushes and commits.

> We are planning at some point to use the Checks API from GH which would make things more clear.

Do you know some other (unrelated) project(s) to look at that already use this API?

Marc

From: "Nashif, Anas" <anas.nashif@...>
Date: Monday, 25 February 2019 at 17:18
To: Marc Herbert <marc.herbert@...>, Björn Stenberg <bjorn@...>, "devel@..." <devel@...>
Subject: Re: [Zephyr-devel] Seeing and running what CI does (was: CODEOWNERS check in CI)

Status is actually available as a comment in the PR. We are planning at some point to use the Checks API from GH which would make things more clear.

The scripts now provide the output so you do not have to look at the actual CI log which might be verbose and misleading. If any information is missing in the comments posted by CI, please let us know.

Anas

From: <devel@...> on behalf of Marc Herbert <marc.herbert@...>
Date: Monday, 25 February 2019 at 17:28
To: Björn Stenberg <bjorn@...>, "devel@..." <devel@...>
Subject: [Zephyr-devel] Seeing and running what CI does (was: CODEOWNERS check in CI)

Hi Björn,

I asked this question on Slack some time back and Anas answered it's not possible (yet?) for various reasons, one of them related to github accounts and security.

Fortunately something even more useful is already possible: running the checks yourself. Just run this compliance_script.py script:

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/ci-tools/tree/master/scripts

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/ci-tools/pulls

I know run this script *before* uploading anything to github as it obviously saves round trips and time.

You also need the "sanitycheck" script in the other, main repo.

I think sanitycheck is mentioned in the online documentation and the check_compliance about to be.

On a related CI topic, here's why the code coverage report is very often bogus:

https://github.com/codecov/codecov-bash/issues/83 thumbs up to "vote" for it

Cheers,

Marc

From: <devel@...> on behalf of Stenberg <bjorn@...>
Date: Monday, 25 February 2019 at 00:09
To: "devel@..." <devel@...>
Subject: Re: [Zephyr-devel] CODEOWNERS check in CI

Can we please make the "Details" links for these checks show the actual output of the check command, rather than the current generic information about why the check exists?

--

BUGS (Zephyr v1.14.0-rc1) Feb 26 2019

Kumar Gala

#5733

bug

priority: medium
priority: low
priority: high

Coverity
platform: NXP
area: Networking
area: Bluetooth
platform: nRF
area: Logging
area: MISRA-C
area: Drivers
area: Tests
area: Kernel
area: ARM
platform: ESP32
area: Xtensa
area: Memory Protection
area: Watchdog
area: Documentation
area: Shell
area: Samples
area: ARC
area: USB
area: Sockets
area: I2C
area: Toolchains
area: Testing
area: Power Management
area: File System
area: west
area: UART
area: Timer
area: PWM
area: POSIX
area: NIOS2
area: Device Tree
area: Counter
API
platform: STM32
good first issue
area: Security
area: Sanitycheck
area: SPI
area: Portability
area: Other
area: GPIO
area: Display
area: Conformance
area: Boards
to do
platform: ATMEL
area: mcumgr
area: Testing Suite
area: PCI
area: OpenThread
area: OTA
area: Memory Management
area: LWM2M
area: Kconfig
area: IPC
area: Flash
area: Ethernet
area: Debugging
area: Crypto / RNG
area: Console
area: Configuration System
area: C Library
area: Build System
LTS
EXT

Mesh Provisioning Publisher - Setting & Binding in application #bluetoothmesh #zephyrbluetoothmesh

William Fish

#5732

Hi,
I'm new to this and struggling with BLE Mesh provisioning and need help, I am using Micro-bit (nrf51) which struggle to provision via BlueZ meshctl as they have such little memory hence i am attempting to configure the mesh within the application.

All appears okay with subscriptions and I can send unsolicited massages () but i haven't managed to configure a model to publish. When i run the following I get a -16 error (EBUSY 16 /* Mount device busy */)

Any help appreciated.

Billy..

    /* Add Sensor Server model Publisher */
    err = bt_mesh_cfg_mod_pub_set(net_idx, addr, addr,
                    BT_MESH_MODEL_ID_SENSOR_CLI, &pub, NULL);       

Re: CODEOWNERS check in CI

Björn Stenberg

#5731

Oh! I somehow missed that. Thanks, that's good enough for me.

--

Björn

Show quoted text

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 2:16 AM Nashif, Anas <anas.nashif@...> wrote:

The actual output is always available in a comment posted by zephyrbot in the same PR. The comment is updated for every run. Is this what you are looking for?

Anas

From: <devel@...> on behalf of Björn Stenberg <bjorn@...>
Date: Monday, 25 February 2019 at 09:09
To: "devel@..." <devel@...>
Subject: Re: [Zephyr-devel] CODEOWNERS check in CI

Can we please make the "Details" links for these checks show the actual output of the check command, rather than the current generic information about why the check exists?

--

Björn

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:57 PM Nashif, Anas <anas.nashif@...> wrote:

Hi,

Recently we enabled a new CI check that verifies if newly added files are covered in the CODEOWNERS file.

For more information about the CODEOWNERS file please check https://help.github.com/en/articles/about-code-owners.

Whenever you are adding new files (new board, new driver, etc.) please add an entry in the CODEOWNERS file. This will mean that in the future you will be added as a reviewer when changes are submitted against those files and it is a way for others to know who is the maintainer of certain components without having to use `git blame` or other means.

If you think you are not the right owner of some files and you are just extending a component, please let us know (in the PR itself, on slack or per email) and we will advise what to add.

In the case where multiple names are associated with one or more files, the first name (github handle) is the maintainer/owner and additional names are co-maintainers/co-owners.

We are in the process of adding this to the documentation, so stay tuned for more information.

Regards,

Anas

Re: Seeing and running what CI does (was: CODEOWNERS check in CI)

Marc Herbert

#5730