On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 3:15 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > 0 for AVR - AVR128DA28 > > $ tools/configure.sh -l breadxavr:nsh > Copy files > Select CONFIG_HOST_LINUX=y > Refreshing... > ... > > $ make -j16 > ... > clock/clock_delay.c:70:1: error: static assertion failed: "Configure > BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC to non-default value." > 70 | static_assert(CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC != -1, > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ > CC: group/group_signal.c make[1]: *** [Makefile:65: clock_delay.o] > Error 1 > ... > > Set the value to something else, try again > > $ make -j16 > ... > CC: misc/lib_openat.c avr/avr_schedulesigaction.c: In function > ‘up_schedule_sigaction’: > avr/avr_schedulesigaction.c:98:15: error: ‘struct xcptcontext’ has no > member named ‘saved_pc0’ > 98 | tcb->xcp.saved_pc0 = up_current_regs()[REG_PC0]; > | ^ > avr/avr_schedulesigaction.c:99:15: error: ‘struct xcptcontext’ has no > member named ‘saved_pc1’ > 99 | tcb->xcp.saved_pc1 = up_current_regs()[REG_PC1]; > | ^ > avr/avr_sigdeliver.c: In function ‘avr_sigdeliver’: > avr/avr_sigdeliver.c:64:19: error: ‘struct tcb_s’ has no member named > ‘sigdeliver’ > 64 | rtcb, rtcb->sigdeliver, rtcb->sigpendactionq.head); > | ^~ > avr/avr_sigdeliver.c:64:37: error: ‘struct tcb_s’ has no member named > ‘sigpendactionq’ > 64 | rtcb, rtcb->sigdeliver, rtcb->sigpendactionq.head); > | ^~ > In file included from avr/avr_sigdeliver.c:31: > avr/avr_sigdeliver.c:65:19: error: ‘struct tcb_s’ has no member named > ‘sigdeliver’ > 65 | DEBUGASSERT(rtcb->sigdeliver != NULL); > | ^~ > > Reconfigure "Signal support level" to "Enable full signal support" in > RTOS features, try again > > $ make -j16 > Create version.h > LD: nuttx > Memory region Used Size Region Size %age Used > flash: 51215 B 128 KB 39.07% > sram: 1004 B 16 KB 6.13% > eeprom: 0 B 512 B 0.00% > rodata: 592 B 4 KB 14.45% > CP: nuttx.hex > CP: nuttx.asm > > $ minicom > NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-12.13.0 > nsh> > > In other words - cannot currently be built out of the box now but > workarounds/solutions exist. (Taking that into consideration together > with the fact that that I am probably the only person trying to use > NuttX with this chip, anything more negative than 0 vote does not seem > appropriate.)
Yes this value should be measured and provided in board defconfig to produce valid timings, please take a look: https://nuttx.apache.org/docs/latest/applications/examples/calib_udelay/index.html Can you please measure and provide valid value for that board configurations? :-) -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
