Re: [PATCH 1/4] eng: Update EARS syntax

On 18/03/2021 01:43, Chris Johns wrote: On 18/3/21 4:34 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: The document used the EARS syntax from 2009 which slightly changed in 2016, see "Listens Learned (8 Lessons Learned Applying EARS)". The optional pre-conditions moved to the state-driven pattern. This refined

Re: [PATCH rtems-docs v2 3/6] rtems-docs: Edit command to install toolsuite

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 9:04 PM Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: > > Hello Ida, > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 8:42 PM Ida Delphine wrote: > > > > I just installed texlive and trying to do a top level build using ./waf > > configure. But looks like it doesn't work well...I get this error at the > >

Re: [PATCH rtems-docs v2 3/6] rtems-docs: Edit command to install toolsuite

Hello Ida, On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 8:42 PM Ida Delphine wrote: > > I just installed texlive and trying to do a top level build using ./waf configure. But looks like it doesn't work well...I get this error at the end: > Setting top to :

[PATCH] rtems-fdt/rtems-fdt.c: Fix bug in loop termination

The while loop, loops infinitely in case of raw FDT data. The loop condition (size) is not modified during iterations. --- cpukit/libmisc/rtems-fdt/rtems-fdt.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/cpukit/libmisc/rtems-fdt/rtems-fdt.c

Re: [PATCH rtems-docs v2 3/6] rtems-docs: Edit command to install toolsuite

I just installed texlive and trying to do a top level build using ./waf configure. But looks like it doesn't work well...I get this error at the end: Setting top to : /home/idadel/Desktop/gsoc/docs/rtems-docs Setting out to :

PTP on RTEMS

Hello, I have created a tarball of my PTP efforts so far: https://ftp.rtems.org/pub/rtems/people/chrisj/ptp/ It is a collection of sources I have as a WIP that you link into an application. This is a development technique I use to avoid building multiple libraries. The package contains: -

Re: [PATCH 1/4] eng: Update EARS syntax

On 18/3/21 4:34 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: > The document used the EARS syntax from 2009 which slightly changed in > 2016, see "Listens Learned (8 Lessons Learned Applying EARS)". The > optional pre-conditions moved to the state-driven pattern. This refined > syntax fits better to the action

Re: #3860 - GSoC enquiries

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 2:28 PM Ida Delphine wrote: > > Hello, > So I have gone through this configuration file and I think I'm getting it. > However I'm a bit lost in the reading the messages in the thread. Do you mind > explaining? Or we can start talking about a way forward. > Also can you

Re: [PATCH rtems-docs v2 2/6] rtems-docs: Update command for offline download

Yes. It was intended. On Wed, 17 Mar 2021, 2:36 am Chris Johns, wrote: > On 16/3/21 7:15 pm, Ida Delphine wrote: > > Changed command from ../source-builder/sb-set-builder > --source-only-download 5/rtems-sparc to ../source-builder/sb-set-builder > --source-only-download 6/rtems-sparc. > >

Re: [PATCH] Add configuration option for single processor applications

Hi Richi, On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:06 PM Sebastian Huber wrote: > > On 17/03/2021 19:00, Richi Dubey wrote: > > > Thanks for your quick review. > > > > I think this patch is superfluous. In which scenario do you think > > it is > > necessary? > > > > It is from this mail

Re: [PATCH rtems-docs v2 3/6] rtems-docs: Edit command to install toolsuite

Ok, I will do that. On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 7:56 PM Gedare Bloom wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:16 PM Ida Delphine wrote: > > > > I ran the commands and copied and pasted wherever there were mismatches > especially with respect to the version numbers. > > > OK, I noticed some

Re: #3860 - GSoC enquiries

Hello, So I have gone through this configuration file and I think I'm getting it. However I'm a bit lost in the reading the messages in the thread. Do you mind explaining? Or we can start talking about a way forward. Also can you help me with some steps on how to test this by myself if possible?

Re: [PATCH] Add configuration option for single processor applications

On 17/03/2021 19:00, Richi Dubey wrote: Thanks for your quick review. I think this patch is superfluous. In which scenario do you think it is necessary? It is from this mail conversation: https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-September/061845.html

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Clarify some requirements related topics

These look good, thanks. Someday I might manage to catch-up to the pace of progress that has been made in central. On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:34 AM Sebastian Huber wrote: > > Sebastian Huber (4): > eng: Update EARS syntax > eng: Add build/appl config clauses to how-to > eng: Document

Re: [PATCH] Add configuration option for single processor applications

Thanks for your quick review. I think this patch is superfluous. In which scenario do you think it is > necessary? It is from this mail conversation: https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-September/061845.html followed by https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-September/061846.html.

[PATCH 4/4] eng: Improve action requirements how-to

Update #3715. --- eng/req/howto.rst | 418 +++-- eng/test-framework.rst | 2 + 2 files changed, 408 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/eng/req/howto.rst b/eng/req/howto.rst index e7c35b3..ee942b8 100644 --- a/eng/req/howto.rst +++

[PATCH 1/4] eng: Update EARS syntax

The document used the EARS syntax from 2009 which slightly changed in 2016, see "Listens Learned (8 Lessons Learned Applying EARS)". The optional pre-conditions moved to the state-driven pattern. This refined syntax fits better to the action requirements. Update #3715. --- eng/req/howto.rst

[PATCH 0/4] Clarify some requirements related topics

Sebastian Huber (4): eng: Update EARS syntax eng: Add build/appl config clauses to how-to eng: Document expressions in action requirements eng: Improve action requirements how-to eng/req/howto.rst | 573 ++-- eng/req/items.rst | 209

[PATCH 3/4] eng: Document expressions in action requirements

Update #3715. --- eng/req/items.rst | 209 +++--- 1 file changed, 198 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/eng/req/items.rst b/eng/req/items.rst index 9766598..64a32cb 100644 --- a/eng/req/items.rst +++ b/eng/req/items.rst @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ ..

[PATCH 2/4] eng: Add build/appl config clauses to how-to

Update #3715. --- eng/req/howto.rst | 123 ++ 1 file changed, 123 insertions(+) diff --git a/eng/req/howto.rst b/eng/req/howto.rst index ee239d4..e7c35b3 100644 --- a/eng/req/howto.rst +++ b/eng/req/howto.rst @@ -280,6 +280,129 @@ an

Re: GSoC: Matt Joyce Introduction

Hi Matt, On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 6:18 AM Matthew Joyce wrote: > > Hello RTEMS Community! > > My name is Matt, I’m a former US Army infantry officer, now back in school > pursuing a second bachelor’s in Computer Science at Oregon State University. > > I am new to open source, but I am just

Re: [PATCH] RTEMS 5.2: rtems: Allow RTEMS_PRIORITY for MrsP semaphores

On 17/03/2021 13:39, Joel Sherrill wrote: Random thought. Does this impact user documentation? I am sure know what is in the 6 vs 5 docs for this area and can answer if some text needs to be pulled back to 5. Thanks for the reminder. I updated the RTEMS 5 documentation accordingly. --

Re: About is_non_preempt_mode_supported

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:54 AM Richi Dubey wrote: > Hi, > > I am debugging tm19 running on Strong APA scheduler. It gives the > following error: > rtems_signal_catch FAILED -- expected (RTEMS_SUCCESSFUL) got > (RTEMS_NOT_IMPLEMENTED) > > which is due to line 167 >

Re: [PATCH] RTEMS 5.2: rtems: Allow RTEMS_PRIORITY for MrsP semaphores

Random thought. Does this impact user documentation? I am sure know what is in the 6 vs 5 docs for this area and can answer if some text needs to be pulled back to 5. --joel On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 4:53 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 16/03/2021 16:41,

GSoC: Matt Joyce Introduction

Hello RTEMS Community! My name is Matt, I’m a former US Army infantry officer, now back in school pursuing a second bachelor’s in Computer Science at Oregon State University. I am new to open source, but I am just completing my second (elective) operating systems course and have a class in

Re: [PATCH] RTEMS 5.2: rtems: Allow RTEMS_PRIORITY for MrsP semaphores

On 16/03/2021 16:41, Gedare Bloom wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 8:01 AM Sebastian Huber wrote: In order to improve the compatibility of RTEMS 5.2 with future version of RTEMS which fixed #4346 allow MrsP semaphores to be created with minor note, this "fixed #4346" might get picked up by

About is_non_preempt_mode_supported

Hi, I am debugging tm19 running on Strong APA scheduler. It gives the following error: rtems_signal_catch FAILED -- expected (RTEMS_SUCCESSFUL) got (RTEMS_NOT_IMPLEMENTED) which is due to line 167 . This arises because the