Re: [PATCH] MAINAINERS: Add rule for BSP-specific patches

+1 On 21/3/18 2:35 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: > Thanks, looks good. > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Sebastian Huber > wrote: >> On 20/03/18 13:43, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> >>> +devel@rtems.org in case nobody explictly rejected the patch. >> >> >> Sorry

Re: [PATCH v2] config.inc: Remove unused values.

On 20/3/18 9:21 pm, Christian Mauderer wrote: > --- > config.inc | 11 --- > libbsd.txt | 20 +--- > libbsd_waf.py| 3 --- > waf_generator.py | 3 --- > 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/config.inc b/config.inc > index

[PATCH] 4.11: fix hosts defaults loading for linux systems.

--- rtemstoolkit/linux.py | 2 +- rtemstoolkit/options.py | 1 + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/rtemstoolkit/linux.py b/rtemstoolkit/linux.py index d011f67..15c6132 100644 --- a/rtemstoolkit/linux.py +++ b/rtemstoolkit/linux.py @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ def load():

Re: GSoC'18 proposal - Porting SDIO driver and benchmarking

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Udit agarwal wrote: > Hi, > We can't really merge the back-ported code with the current libbsd version > to avoid version inconsistency. > Thus, i am proposing to prepare all the necessary changes(patches), which > can be applied once the

Re: GSoC'18 proposal - Porting SDIO driver and benchmarking

Hi, We can't really merge the back-ported code with the current libbsd version to avoid version inconsistency. Thus, i am proposing to prepare all the necessary changes(patches), which can be applied once the libbsd receives it's next update. On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Gedare Bloom

Re: GSoC'18 proposal - Porting SDIO driver and benchmarking

I have a question about the high-level goal of this project. Is it to produce a back-ported version of the stack to our current libbsd, or is to prepare the changes necessary to apply to libbsd when it gets updated to a newer FreeBSD containing the sdio stack, or both? On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at

Re: GSoC'18 proposal - Porting SDIO driver and benchmarking

Hi, On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 8:48 PM, Christian Mauderer wrote: > Am 18.03.2018 um 14:22 schrieb Udit agarwal: > > Hi all, > > Here's the link to my proposal: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15Ut9FLAV3Y0Up1Qn02ys6KAb2QhtR > eF_P-wNR861NMo/edit?usp=sharing > > > >

Re: [PATCH v2] bsp/atsam: Fix GMAC Rx Descriptor fields.

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 6:01 AM, Christian Mauderer wrote: > Hello Gedare, > > is that patch better / acceptable from your point of view? > Yes, thank you. > Best regards > > Christian > > Am 19.03.2018 um 08:58 schrieb Christian Mauderer: >> --- >>

Re: [PATCH] openssl: Provide deprecated functions.

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 6:03 AM, Christian Mauderer wrote: > > Am 19.03.2018 um 09:26 schrieb Christian Mauderer: >> Am 16.03.2018 um 15:11 schrieb Gedare Bloom: >>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Christian Mauderer >>>

GSoC Proposals to Review

Hi If any students have proposals to review, please share the links with myself and other mentors. Thanks. --joel ___ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [PATCH] MAINAINERS: Add rule for BSP-specific patches

Thanks, looks good. On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 20/03/18 13:43, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> >> +devel@rtems.org in case nobody explictly rejected the patch. > > > Sorry for the typo. > > -- > Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH

Re: [PATCH] MAINAINERS: Add rule for BSP-specific patches

On 20/03/18 13:43, Sebastian Huber wrote: +devel@rtems.org in case nobody explictly rejected the patch. Sorry for the typo. -- Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 E-Mail :

[PATCH v2] MAINAINERS: Add rule for BSP-specific patches

--- MAINTAINERS | 9 + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 2d91ecb149..2732d773c4 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -20,12 +20,13 @@ who can be trusted to distinguish between changes which require others to review,

[PATCH] MAINAINERS: Add rule for BSP-specific patches

--- MAINTAINERS | 9 + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 2d91ecb149..ee991c6e95 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -20,12 +20,13 @@ who can be trusted to distinguish between changes which require others to review,

[PATCH v2] config.inc: Remove unused values.

--- config.inc | 11 --- libbsd.txt | 20 +--- libbsd_waf.py| 3 --- waf_generator.py | 3 --- 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) diff --git a/config.inc b/config.inc index 3432a5fc..6727a3d3 100644 --- a/config.inc +++ b/config.inc @@

Re: [PATCH] Eliminate config.inc.

On 20/03/18 10:57, Christian Mauderer wrote: +=== Tests === + +There are tests for some features in the `testsuite` directory. Note that some +of the tests use a fixed IP configuration that is defined in +`testsuite/include/rtems/bsd/test/network-config.h`. It is not clear to me in this

Re: [PATCH] openssl: Provide deprecated functions.

Am 19.03.2018 um 09:26 schrieb Christian Mauderer: > Am 16.03.2018 um 15:11 schrieb Gedare Bloom: >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Christian Mauderer >> wrote: >>> Some applications (like the civetweb web server) still use functions >>> that are

Re: [PATCH v2] bsp/atsam: Fix GMAC Rx Descriptor fields.

Hello Gedare, is that patch better / acceptable from your point of view? Best regards Christian Am 19.03.2018 um 08:58 schrieb Christian Mauderer: > --- > bsps/arm/atsam/include/libchip/include/gmac.h | 17 +++-- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git

Re: [PATCH] Eliminate config.inc.

Am 20.03.2018 um 02:14 schrieb Chris Johns: > On 20/03/2018 02:16, Christian Mauderer wrote: >> Most of the values in config.inc haven't been used any more. The only >> part left has been the ip addresses for some of the test. > > Why not just removed the parts not being used? > >> All other

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:44 AM Chris Johns wrote: > On 20/03/2018 16:21, Amaan Cheval wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 8:23 AM Chris Johns wrote: > > > >> On 19/03/2018 18:36, Amaan Cheval wrote: > >>> Thanks for checking the tool status! > >>> > >>> TLS

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On 20/03/2018 16:21, Amaan Cheval wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 8:23 AM Chris Johns wrote: > >> On 19/03/2018 18:36, Amaan Cheval wrote: >>> Thanks for checking the tool status! >>> >>> TLS support for the tool seems okay to me as well - I see the TLS > program header >>>