Re: [rtems commit] bsp/qoriq: Use U-Boot provided FDT

On 20/10/15 00:46, Chris Johns wrote: Was this patch posted tode...@rtems.org for review? No, since this is a BSP specific patch. I do not remember any discussion about how BSPs and FDT will be supported. U-Boot supports FDT for several years now. So, all U-Boot based BSPs may use this

Re: Suggestions for BSPs to Obsolete

On 10/20/2015 6:15 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: Hallo, I would remove all 16-bit or less targets. I previously posted suggesting the avr, h8300, and m32r be removed. No one has commented so far. I want to write two wiki pages as I go. One on removing a BSP and another on removing an

Random lwIP Crashes in _POSIX_Mutex_Lock_support()

Hi Devel, I'm pretty sure this is a devel question, not users. I'm working with a colleague at Vecna to port lwIP to the STM32F7 BSP we've developed. We have a basic HTTP server that prints out the current list of tasks. We refresh the page at a very high rate, and after about 1-30 minutes,

[PATCH] CONFIGURE_IMFS_MEMFILE_BYTES_PER_BLOCK was undocumented and not error checked

closes #2431. --- cpukit/sapi/include/confdefs.h | 14 doc/user/conf.t | 55 ++ testsuites/psxtests/psximfs02/init.c |4 +- 3 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/cpukit/sapi/include/confdefs.h

Re: [PATCH] CONFIGURE_IMFS_MEMFILE_BYTES_PER_BLOCK was undocumented and not error checked

A couple of doco typos... On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 14:47 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote: > closes #2431. > --- > cpukit/sapi/include/confdefs.h | 14 > doc/user/conf.t | 55 > ++ > testsuites/psxtests/psximfs02/init.c |4 +- >

Re: [PATCH] CONFIGURE_IMFS_MEMFILE_BYTES_PER_BLOCK was undocumented and not error checked

Thank you. I have made these changes. Did the explanation make enough sense where you would know what it did? :) On 10/20/2015 5:41 PM, Nick Withers wrote: A couple of doco typos... On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 14:47 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote: closes #2431. --- cpukit/sapi/include/confdefs.h

4.11 bumping binutils to 2.25

Hi I bumped binutils to 2.25 and can build a moxie toolset. This is the first time in a while. Should the other targets be bumped to 2.25 for RTEMS 4.11? Or just the moxie? --joel ___ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org

Re: 4.11 bumping binutils to 2.25

On 10/20/2015 6:13 PM, Chris Johns wrote: On 21/10/2015 9:30 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: I bumped binutils to 2.25 and can build a moxie toolset. This is the first time in a while. Excellent. This is ok for 4.11. And I found a typo in moxiesim/configure.ac and have now built that BSP. I

Re: 4.11 bumping binutils to 2.25

On 21/10/2015 9:30 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > I bumped binutils to 2.25 and can build a moxie toolset. This > is the first time in a while. Excellent. This is ok for 4.11. > Should the other targets be bumped to 2.25 for RTEMS 4.11? > Or just the moxie? I suggest just moxie until 4.11.0 and

Re: Suggestions for BSPs to Obsolete

On 21/10/2015 12:56 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On 10/20/2015 6:15 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> Maybe we should build a list of BSP directories and find maintainers for >> each directory in some time frame. Then remove all BSPs without a >> maintainer. > > That is one approach. Another is

Re: [rtems commit] libfdt: Initial import

On 20/10/2015 9:56 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 20/10/15 00:39, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> Did I miss all discussion and review of this patch set? > > I am actually a bit surprised that this patch set turned out to be a bit > controversial. I just want to use U-Boot provided parameters in one >

Re: Random lwIP Crashes in _POSIX_Mutex_Lock_support()

On 20/10/15 16:02, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: Hi Devel, I'm pretty sure this is a devel question, not users. I'm working with a colleague at Vecna to port lwIP to the STM32F7 BSP we've developed. We have a basic HTTP server that prints out the current list of tasks. We refresh the page at a