Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2638794701 ## arch/Kconfig: ## @@ -1316,11 +1316,12 @@ comment "Board Settings" config BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC int "Delay loops per millisecond" - default 5000 + default -1 Review Comment: let's remove the default value to enforce the user must provide a value in defconfig and remove static_assert in ALL files -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2638794701 ## arch/Kconfig: ## @@ -1316,11 +1316,12 @@ comment "Board Settings" config BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC int "Delay loops per millisecond" - default 5000 + default -1 Review Comment: let's remove the default value and static_assert in ALL files -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3680648912 Running list of boards which need a LOOPSPERMSEC value: - [ ] fvp-v84-aarch32/fvp-armv8r-aarch32 - [ ] mps/mps2-an500 - [ ] mps/mps2-an521 - [ ] mps/mps3-an547 - [ ] phy62xx/phy6222 - [ ] stm32wl5/nucleo-wl55jc - [ ] tms570/tms570ls31x-usb-kit - [ ] stm32/nucleo-g474re - [ ] stm32/b-g474e-dpow1 - [ ] fvp-v8r/fvp-armv8r - [ ] imx8/imx8qm-mek - [x] a527/avaota-a1 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
lupyuen commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3680592727 Sorry @linguini1: Could you set this for Avaota-A1? Thanks :-) `boards/arm64/a527/avaota-a1/configs/nsh/defconfig` ```bash CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=201847 ``` -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3679857073 The remaining CI failures I believe are entirely due to board configurations that never had a LOOPSPERMSEC definition in the first place. I will try to find some people who own these boards that can come up with a realistic value from `calibudelay` to solve the errors. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
wangchdo commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3679708706 > Thank you @linguini1 great job! With your time precision updates and #17489 ns scale high resolution timer we only lack one small function to rewind time backwards :D @cederom https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17489 has been split into two parts. Part 1 https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17517 has already been merged after SMP-specific optimizations. The remaining changes are now submitted as Part 2 in a separate PR: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17573 To avoid duplicate review effort, this PR is marked as draft. Please continue to review Part 2 https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17573 instead. Once Part 2 https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17573 is merged, all functionality originally planned for this PR will be completed, and this PR will be closed. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3679211796 PR rebased on latest master. I've removed the `CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0` option from all sim configs since now it properly depends on the timer delay implementation from CLOCKDEVICE and doesn't need to use the `up_udelay` interface or the arch/alarm interface. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
cederom commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3434275313 Thank you @jlaitine for the hints here! :-) @linguini1 looks like you found a hard nutt(x) to crack :D :D -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3433983169 > The code which redirected the ndelay&udelay to oneshot driver ended up using systick to implement udelay, which caused e.g. udelay(1) to sleep 1-2 microseconds instead of busylooping for one microsecond. This just blew up many places where a short bysyloop was needed, in device drivers That I can understand, which is definitely suboptimal. However, drivers shouldn't have been relying on up_udelay being accurate either. If the busy delay gets interrupted for 1us because of a context switch, you end up sleeping for 2+us as well. I don't think these implementations differ in that way. But with systick, if you sleep for 1us and get interrupted due to context switch for 10us, when CPU is regained you'll see that >2us has passed and stop immediately. With busy wait, you'll continue the remaining iterations for 1us and total sleep time ends up being 11us. The only time busy wait is better is for sub-systick delays where context switching doesn't happen or very rarely happens. I personally think neither of these methods are very good, but I do think that the sim architecture needs to adhere to delays. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
jlaitine commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3433949157 The code which redirected the ndelay&udelay to oneshot driver ended up using systick to implement udelay, which caused e.g. udelay(1) to sleep 1-2 microseconds instead of busylooping for one microsecond. This just blew up many places where a short bysyloop was needed, in device drivers Just when you revert the fixes, please *make sure* that ndelay/udelay never end up to a systick based delay! Matteo Golin kirjoitti keskiviikko 22. lokakuuta 2025: > @linguini1 commented on this pull request. > > > > > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y > CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" > CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y > CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y > +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 > > Xiang can probably answer better, but my understanding is that once the `CLOCKDEVICE` logic is merged in upstream, that can replace the delay method used by `arch_alarm.c` and make it more accurate (not using busy-wait, not using system-ticks). Unfortunately I have been to busy to go back and re-watch the talk, but I plan to sometime soon. > > -- > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2452619791 > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > > Message ID: ***@***.*** -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2452619791 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: Xiang can probably answer better, but my understanding is that once the `CLOCKDEVICE` logic is merged in upstream, that can replace the delay method used by `arch_alarm.c` and make it more accurate (not using busy-wait, not using system-ticks). Unfortunately I have been to busy to go back and re-watch the talk, but I plan to sometime soon. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
cederom commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2452540675 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: Thank you guys! How does these two changes proposed by @linguini1 here and @Fix-Point CLOCKDEVICE live together? Would that fix delays in SIM after @linguini1 work from this PR is included and boards are updated? Or this will be completely alternative functionality aside to existing timers/delays implementation? :-) -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2452448635 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: I've reverted #14450 in #17221. This makes the sim architecture respect delays properly now. Please review it if you have the time. My plan once that is merged is to rebase this PR to include those changes. I think in this PR I will add a DEBUGASSERT to the `arch_timer.c` implementation to avoid the case where `g_oneshot_lower == NULL && CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC == 0`, since that is another scenario where delays will be ignored. Then I feel comfortable keeping all sim configurations with `CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0` and we can move on to getting sane values for the rest of the NuttX configurations missing a non-default value. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2443405441 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: Yes, revert #14450. But, #17220 can't fix the problem mentioned by @jlaitine . The fix need @Fix-Point upstream his work described in `CLOCKDEVICE: New timer driver abstraction for NuttX.`. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3349100175 @acassis is there a defined way to document Kconfig options, such as this important constant? I think it would be good to be able to reference it from other places in the RST docs (like a global macro symbol that links to its documentation location). I want to be able to indicate that drivers should *not* assume this value is defined, and should avoid using it if at all possible. I saw a few drivers and board bring up code that rely on this value where they could instead use `up_udelay`. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2376605497 ## boards/arm64/qemu/qemu-armv8a/configs/fastboot/defconfig: ## @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP_QEMU=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP_QEMU_A53=y CONFIG_ARCH_INTERRUPTSTACK=4096 CONFIG_AUDIO=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=354375 Review Comment: I don't see how the implementations in that file avoid using the coarse delay, unless there is an implementation of the delay functions for QEMU elsewhere? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2442334240 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: It's better to revert https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17200, the problem hit by @jlaitine is fixed by new clock driver which just talk on Apache NuttX® International Workshop 2025: CLOCKDEVICE: New timer driver abstraction for NuttX. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2442377816 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: Do you mean revert #14450 or use #17200? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2376573961 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: > ARCH_ALARM/ARCH_TIMER After looking into this, I realize this is not true. `up_ndelay` uses `up_udelaycoarse` which relies on LOOPSPERMSEC. This is a weak definition though, so it may be overwritten sometimes. I think it's more complicated than checking for `ARCH_ALARM/ARCH_TIMER`. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2393378585 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: before your change, arch_alarm.c implement up_udelay: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17071/files#diff-0b93d3b636b9a621c7a7904978e06958366a6f72a48a56e954253dbb8e01aa1dL410 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3352839618 > it's better to call up_udelay and remove BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC directly. I agree completely, hence why I want to document that drivers shouldn't be relying on the `LOOPSPERMSEC` macro ever, and if they can, they should avoid using `up_udelay` as well since the default implementation isn't very robust. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2395144485 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: > before your change, arch_alarm.c implement up_udelay: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17071/files#diff-0b93d3b636b9a621c7a7904978e06958366a6f72a48a56e954253dbb8e01aa1dL410 You're right, but if you look at the implementation in arch_alarm.c, you can see that it uses the exact same as the default definition. So even it depended on `CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC`. So I still have a gap in my understanding about why `sim` is able to run with that option set to 0, essentially never waiting. Where else is the delay coming from? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
xiaoxiang781216 commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3349716161 > @acassis is there a defined way to document Kconfig options, such as this important constant? I think it would be good to be able to reference it from other places in the RST docs (like a global macro symbol that links to its documentation location). I want to be able to indicate that drivers should _not_ assume this value is defined, and should avoid using it if at all possible. I saw a few drivers and board bring up code that rely on this value where they could instead use `up_udelay`. it's better to call up_udelay and remove BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC directly. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2440935185 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: > see this pr: #14450 Ah, that makes more sense. So it was removed before I had unified the `up_delay` functions. That PR removes the "accurate" implementation in favour of always using the coarse implementation though, so that means after this PR was merged, the simulator would never respect delays at all since `LOOPSPERMSEC` is always set to 0 on sim if its not missing. So currently, `LOOPSPERMSEC` on sim causes it to never respect delays at all. Not sure how we haven't seen anything fail on sim due to that change, but it seems to be working. I guess my options here are to either restore the `arch_alarm.c` implementation with something that prevents architectures that use it from using coarse delays, or create a sim-specific `up_delay` definition which maybe uses the new `nxsched_sleep` from #17200? I don't think it's possible to find a good `LOOPSPERMSEC` value on sim since I would guess it varies widely depending on the host machine hardware. Do you have any suggestions on what would be the best option @xiaoxiang781216? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2440935185 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: > see this pr: #14450 Ah, that makes more sense. So it was removed before I had unified the `up_delay` functions. That PR removes the "accurate" implementation in favour of always using the coarse implementation though, so that means after this PR was merged, the simulator would never respect delays at all since `LOOPSPERMSEC` is always set to 0 on sim if its not missing. So currently, `LOOPSPERMSEC` on sim causes it to never respect delays at all. Not sure how we haven't seen anything fail on sim due to that change, but it seems to be working. I guess my options here are to either restore the `arch_alarm.c` implementation with something that prevents architectures that use it from using coarse delays, or create a sim-specific `up_delay` definition which maybe uses the new `nxsched_sleep` from #17200? I don't think it's possible to find a good `LOOPSPERMSEC` value on sim since I would guess it varies widely depending on the host machine hardware. Do you have any suggestions on what would be the best option? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2415526449 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: see this pr: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/14450 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2392778871 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: > sim select ALARM_ARCH automatically here: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/blob/master/arch/Kconfig#L119 But `ALARM_ARCH` doesn't implement `up_udelay`. So these functions are still coming from the basic implementation. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
acassis commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3353785740 > @acassis is there a defined way to document Kconfig options, such as this important constant? I think it would be good to be able to reference it from other places in the RST docs (like a global macro symbol that links to its documentation location). I want to be able to indicate that drivers should _not_ assume this value is defined, and should avoid using it if at all possible. I saw a few drivers and board bring up code that rely on this value where they could instead use `up_udelay`. You can create a Documentation/ to it, but a better idea to avoid user to not setting it is raising a #warn when this symbol has the default value 0 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2389800285 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: sim select ALARM_ARCH automatically here: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/blob/master/arch/Kconfig#L119 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2389538588 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: @xiaoxiang781216 it looks like all of the failing builds for sim are the configurations without `BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0`. These configurations also don't have `TIMER_ARCH` or `ARCH_ALARM` (at least the ones I saw). What I understand from this is that either sim is pulling its definition of `up_udelay` from elsewhere (I don't think this is the case, none of the other definitions that exist for it would be involved in a sim build) _or_ the behaviour of `up_udelay` doesn't matter for any of these sim configurations. Is it suitable to continue with adding `CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0` to the remaining simulator configurations (they're all either using 0 or were using the old default value, so likely it doesn't affect anything)? Or is there some other approach you'd like me to take? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2377305939 ## include/nuttx/arch.h: ## @@ -99,6 +99,18 @@ #define DEBUGPOINT_BREAKPOINT0x04 #define DEBUGPOINT_STEPPOINT 0x05 +/* Ensure that LOOPSPERMSEC is not the default, invalid value. If it is, let + * the user know that they need to change it and then calibrate it. + */ + +static_assert( +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC >= 0, Review Comment: > this mean is time to merge the implementation into one:), since the soft busy wait isn't couple with arch/chip at all. This is done in #17071 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2376573961 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: > ARCH_ALARM/ARCH_TIMER After looking into this, I realize this is not true. `up_ndelay` uses `up_udelaycoarse` which relies on LOOPSPERMSEC. This is a weak definition though, so it may be overwritten sometimes. I think it's more complicated than checking for `ARCH_ALARM`. Also, there is no `ARCH_TIMER`, only `ARCH_TIMER_HOOK`. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3288909693 I don't have imx8qm-mek (first time I heard about this i.MX 8QuadMax MEK). This board is very expensive (more than U$ 1K), it should be nice if we had a low cost board powered by MCIMX8QM. Ah, sorry! I guess the code-owners file might not be super representative. Hopefully someone else has one they can calibrate for. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3286754764 > @linguini1 instead of suggesting searching for CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC I suggest search for calib_udelay because there is not a page dedicated to CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC and when searching for it returns many pages. That's fine, I plan to make one for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC but it's better to redirect to calib_udelay for now, I agree. > Searching for calib_udelay returned two pages, but I think we need to move calib_udelay from apps/examples/ to apps/system/ because it is a system tool used to help the system to work correctly. And it also will avoid calib_udelay returning in the apps examples pages. What do you think? I don't mind moving it to the system directory but that's outside the scope of this PR. I agree it makes more sense, but I might do it later. Right now I just want to prevent users from making a frustrating mistake. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
raiden00pl commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2348194369 ## include/nuttx/arch.h: ## @@ -99,6 +99,18 @@ #define DEBUGPOINT_BREAKPOINT0x04 #define DEBUGPOINT_STEPPOINT 0x05 +/* Ensure that LOOPSPERMSEC is not the default, invalid value. If it is, let + * the user know that they need to change it and then calibrate it. + */ + +static_assert( Review Comment: it looks like nuttx is already dealing with static_assert in a portable way: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/blob/71f558765c7d53d0dad001cd1617d7f6ecf23c8c/include/assert.h#L135-L147 so it's not a problem :) -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
cederom commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3286422902 Looks like we need to fix the boards where -1 / default is used, just to pass build here and have correct timings on these boards, then update the res of the boards depending on what we have at hand? :-) On the other hand we may keep this default and put some pressure / attention to the proper timings calibration when using different boards. I am wondering what impacts the value and if the differences are big - for instance when using specific optimization level, many irqs etc :-) -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
acassis commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2345123030 ## include/nuttx/arch.h: ## @@ -99,6 +99,18 @@ #define DEBUGPOINT_BREAKPOINT0x04 #define DEBUGPOINT_STEPPOINT 0x05 +/* Ensure that LOOPSPERMSEC is not the default, invalid value. If it is, let + * the user know that they need to change it and then calibrate it. + */ + +static_assert( +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC >= 0, +"Please set a non-negative value for CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC to pass " +"compilation. It is recommended that after your initial build, you use " +"the example 'calib_udelay' to get a precise value for this option. " +"Please search the NuttX documentation for CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC" Review Comment: You missed space at end of this line, it is glued with the "for" word from next line. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2347863605 ## include/nuttx/arch.h: ## @@ -99,6 +99,18 @@ #define DEBUGPOINT_BREAKPOINT0x04 #define DEBUGPOINT_STEPPOINT 0x05 +/* Ensure that LOOPSPERMSEC is not the default, invalid value. If it is, let + * the user know that they need to change it and then calibrate it. + */ + +static_assert( +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC >= 0, Review Comment: this mean is time to merge the implementation into one:), since the soft busy wait isn't couple with arch/chip at all. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2347519109 ## include/nuttx/arch.h: ## @@ -99,6 +99,18 @@ #define DEBUGPOINT_BREAKPOINT0x04 #define DEBUGPOINT_STEPPOINT 0x05 +/* Ensure that LOOPSPERMSEC is not the default, invalid value. If it is, let + * the user know that they need to change it and then calibrate it. + */ + +static_assert( +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC >= 0, Review Comment: > there are many method to implement the busy wait loop, it's better to put your assert to the place which really use this macro. But this is used in many different places, so it would require replicating the assert statement many times -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2347465221 ## include/nuttx/arch.h: ## @@ -99,6 +99,18 @@ #define DEBUGPOINT_BREAKPOINT0x04 #define DEBUGPOINT_STEPPOINT 0x05 +/* Ensure that LOOPSPERMSEC is not the default, invalid value. If it is, let + * the user know that they need to change it and then calibrate it. + */ + +static_assert( +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC >= 0, Review Comment: there are many method to implement the busy wait loop, it's better to put your assert to the place which really use this macro. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2347401332 ## include/nuttx/arch.h: ## @@ -99,6 +99,18 @@ #define DEBUGPOINT_BREAKPOINT0x04 #define DEBUGPOINT_STEPPOINT 0x05 +/* Ensure that LOOPSPERMSEC is not the default, invalid value. If it is, let + * the user know that they need to change it and then calibrate it. + */ + +static_assert( Review Comment: Do you have another suggestion? I tried looking for other methods but most were C11. I determined this was alright to use since it is used in several other places within NuttX. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2347400979 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: This was the value most often used on other `sim` configurations. I didn't know about these config options, I will look into that! -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2347400878 ## include/nuttx/arch.h: ## @@ -99,6 +99,18 @@ #define DEBUGPOINT_BREAKPOINT0x04 #define DEBUGPOINT_STEPPOINT 0x05 +/* Ensure that LOOPSPERMSEC is not the default, invalid value. If it is, let + * the user know that they need to change it and then calibrate it. + */ + +static_assert( +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC >= 0, Review Comment: I just put it here since it will catch it where it's defined. Maybe I can put a guard around it so that it's not triggered if `ARCH_ARLAM` or `ARCH_TIMER` are enabled? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
raiden00pl commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2347185617 ## include/nuttx/arch.h: ## @@ -99,6 +99,18 @@ #define DEBUGPOINT_BREAKPOINT0x04 #define DEBUGPOINT_STEPPOINT 0x05 +/* Ensure that LOOPSPERMSEC is not the default, invalid value. If it is, let + * the user know that they need to change it and then calibrate it. + */ + +static_assert( Review Comment: static_assert is C11 feature. NuttX common code should use only C89 features. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2347083064 ## boards/arm64/qemu/qemu-armv8a/configs/fastboot/defconfig: ## @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP_QEMU=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP_QEMU_A53=y CONFIG_ARCH_INTERRUPTSTACK=4096 CONFIG_AUDIO=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=354375 Review Comment: qemu use up_delay provided by: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/blob/master/drivers/timers/arch_alarm.c#L410C20-L410C29 don't need set CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC. ## include/nuttx/arch.h: ## @@ -99,6 +99,18 @@ #define DEBUGPOINT_BREAKPOINT0x04 #define DEBUGPOINT_STEPPOINT 0x05 +/* Ensure that LOOPSPERMSEC is not the default, invalid value. If it is, let + * the user know that they need to change it and then calibrate it. + */ + +static_assert( +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC >= 0, Review Comment: it's better to move the assert the place with really use it, since not all busy wait implementation depend on it. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2347082907 ## boards/sim/sim/sim/configs/vncserver/defconfig: ## @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_BOARD_SIM=y CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="sim" CONFIG_ARCH_SIM=y CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INITIALIZE=y +CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC=0 Review Comment: why add sim with the default 0? sim use other method for busy loop wait: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/blob/master/drivers/timers/arch_alarm.c#L410C20-L410C29 all boards which enable ARCH_ALARM/ARCH_TIMER don't need set CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC at all. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
acassis commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3288855681 > > Anyone who can calibrate for `fvp-armv8r`, `avaota-a1` and `imx8qm-mek`? > > According to codeowners, maybe @qinwei2004, @hujun260 can help with `fvp-armv8r`, @lupyuen can help with `avaota-a1` and @qinwei2004 or @acassis can help iwth `imx8qm-mek`? @linguini1 I don't have imx8qm-mek (first time I heard about this i.MX 8QuadMax MEK). This board is very expensive (more than U$ 1K), it should be nice if we had a low cost board powered by MCIMX8QM. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
tinnedkarma commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2346769481 ## arch/Kconfig: ## @@ -1274,11 +1274,12 @@ comment "Board Settings" config BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC Review Comment: All other board related configs lives in the boards/Kconfig, at the end of the file. Won't be an idea to move this board related config there as well? Overall, the location of this config have no functional impact, but it may add some consistency benefit for this config to be in the boards/Kconfig file. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3288718905 > Anyone who can calibrate for `fvp-armv8r`, `avaota-a1` and `imx8qm-mek`? According to codeowners, maybe @qinwei2004, @hujun260 can help with `fvp-armv8r`, @lupyuen can help with `avaota-a1` and @qinwei2004 or @acassis can help iwth `imx8qm-mek`? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on code in PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#discussion_r2346809595 ## arch/Kconfig: ## @@ -1274,11 +1274,12 @@ comment "Board Settings" config BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC Review Comment: That's true. I think this was in arch/Kconfig because the `up_udelay`, `up_mdelay` and etc. functions are architecture implemented. But it is a `BOARD_*` config. I won't move the option in this PR but it would be good to move it later. Maybe you could open an issue? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3288582462 Anyone who can calibrate for `fvp-armv8r`, `avaota-a1` and `imx8qm-mek`? As a side note, it would be great if the build logs displayed a summary of what failed at the bottom instead of having to scroll through the error output. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
acassis commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3286926271 > @acassis @jerpelea do you think this change would be considered a "breaking change"? No, it is not. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3286922030 @acassis @jerpelea do you think this change would be considered a "breaking change"? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
acassis commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3286913868 > MSVC failure appears unrelated. @simbit18 you are the MS guy, any idea? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3286785774 MSVC failure appears unrelated. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
acassis commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3286478732 @linguini1 instead of suggesting searching for CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC I suggest search for calib_udelay because there is not a page dedicated to CONFIG_BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC and when searching for it returns many pages. Searching for calib_udelay returned two pages, but I think we need to move calib_udelay from apps/examples/ to apps/system/ because it is a system tool used to help the system to work correctly. And it also will avoid calib_udelay returning in the apps examples pages. What do you think? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] arch/delays: Set invalid default value for BOARD_LOOPSPERMSEC [nuttx]
linguini1 commented on PR #17011: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17011#issuecomment-3285871269 Looks like there are some defconfigs using the default value. Good to catch. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
