hartmannathan commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2532122972
> > Important note: If this feature is removed from NuttX, then NuttX is
completely useless to me and my employer! We depend on the Zero Latency
Interrupts for critical parts of our
hujun260 commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2530465258
> Important note: If this feature is removed from NuttX, then NuttX is
completely useless to me and my employer! We depend on the Zero Latency
Interrupts for critical parts of our fi
hartmannathan commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2529655586
> What are the consequences of this change? Does it have any disadvantages
compared to PRIMASK? This is not a trivial change, so it's worth discuss it
more as we basically force use
hartmannathan commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2529625473
Please see Issue #15100
--
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
hartmannathan commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2529566868
Sorry, I missed this PR before it was merged, but this PR breaks High
Priority, Zero Latency Interrupts!
See the help text for ARMV7M_USEBASEPRI, which was removed in this PR:
raiden00pl commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2527407858
armv6-m is still broken (tested with stm32g0 and timer example)
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use
xiaoxiang781216 merged PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073
--
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: commits-unsubscr...@nu
hujun260 commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2526596245
> @hujun260 @xiaoxiang781216 Could we remove the word "**bad**" from the
commit message? I don't think this is a **bad** design, right? These are two
interrupt masking mechanisms provide
anchao commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2526582912
@hujun260 @xiaoxiang781216 Could we remove the word "**bad**" from the
commit message? I don't think this is a **bad** design, right? These are two
interrupt masking mechanisms provided by
hujun260 commented on code in PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#discussion_r1875127635
##
arch/arm/include/types.h:
##
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ typedef unsigned int_size_t;
*/
#ifdef __thumb2__
-#if defined(CONFIG_ARMV7M_USEBASEPRI) || define
hujun260 commented on code in PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#discussion_r1875127100
##
arch/arm/include/types.h:
##
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ typedef unsigned int_size_t;
*/
#ifdef __thumb2__
-#if defined(CONFIG_ARMV7M_USEBASEPRI) || define
xiaoxiang781216 commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2526553864
> @hujun260 please extend the explanation from @xiaoxiang781216 and include
it in the commit log message
aleady add to the second commit
--
This is an automated message f
acassis commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2526201264
@hujun260 please extend the explanation from @xiaoxiang781216 and include it
in the commit log message
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the mes
xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#discussion_r1874809145
##
arch/arm/include/types.h:
##
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ typedef unsigned int_size_t;
*/
#ifdef __thumb2__
-#if defined(CONFIG_ARMV7M_USEBASEPRI) ||
hujun260 commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2525379763
> was not accurate, leading to this issue.
>
> Solution: For armv6-m, we haven't found a more suitable solution, so we
are sticking with (*running_task)==NULL. For armv7-m/armv8-m,
hujun260 commented on code in PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#discussion_r1874597108
##
arch/arm/src/armv8-m/arm_tcbinfo.c:
##
@@ -57,13 +57,8 @@ static const uint16_t g_reg_offs[] =
#if 0
UINT16_MAX, /* msp */
TCB_REG_OFF(
acassis commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2523412316
@hujun260 Please include a complete explanation in the commit log message. I
saw @xiaoxiang781216 try to explain a little bit about it, but it is important
to explain what was modified in
xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#discussion_r1873370390
##
arch/arm/src/armv8-m/arm_tcbinfo.c:
##
@@ -57,13 +57,8 @@ static const uint16_t g_reg_offs[] =
#if 0
UINT16_MAX, /* msp */
TCB_R
hujun260 commented on code in PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#discussion_r1873347340
##
arch/arm/src/armv7-m/arm_tcbinfo.c:
##
@@ -53,56 +53,6 @@ static const uint16_t g_reg_offs[] =
TCB_REG_OFF(REG_R14),
TCB_REG_OFF(REG_R15),
TCB_REG_OFF(REG_
xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#discussion_r1873316742
##
arch/arm/src/armv8-m/arm_tcbinfo.c:
##
@@ -53,56 +53,6 @@ static const uint16_t g_reg_offs[] =
TCB_REG_OFF(REG_R14),
TCB_REG_OFF(REG_R15),
TCB_REG_O
hujun260 commented on code in PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#discussion_r1873310422
##
arch/arm/Kconfig:
##
@@ -1011,6 +1012,7 @@ config ARCH_ARMV8M
select ARCH_HAVE_CPUINFO
select ARCH_HAVE_DEBUG
select ARCH_HAVE_PERF_EVENTS
+
hujun260 commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2522769883
> @hujun260 what about armv6-m ? this arch doesn't support BASEPRI, so this
architecture is still broken.
It has been restored to the old implementation.
--
This is an automated
raiden00pl commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2522730052
@hujun260 what about armv6-m ? this arch doesn't support BASEPRI, so this
architecture is still broken.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the
raiden00pl commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2522742374
> PRIMASK is a bad design in armv6-m, that's why arm introduce BASEPRI from
armv7-m. It's wrong to provide this option for armv7-m/armv8-m arch.
I think the timeline is different
xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#discussion_r1872956055
##
arch/arm/Kconfig:
##
@@ -1011,6 +1012,7 @@ config ARCH_ARMV8M
select ARCH_HAVE_CPUINFO
select ARCH_HAVE_DEBUG
select ARCH_HAVE_PERF_E
xiaoxiang781216 commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2522687617
> What are the consequences of this change?
syscall doesn't go through hardfault.
> Does it have any disadvantages compared to PRIMASK?
I don't see any bad side
anchao commented on code in PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#discussion_r1872794622
##
arch/arm/Kconfig:
##
@@ -1011,6 +1012,7 @@ config ARCH_ARMV8M
select ARCH_HAVE_CPUINFO
select ARCH_HAVE_DEBUG
select ARCH_HAVE_PERF_EVENTS
+
raiden00pl commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2522473461
I confirm that this PR fixes this issue on nrf52
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/14514
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message,
anchao commented on code in PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#discussion_r1872694450
##
arch/arm/src/armv8-m/arm_doirq.c:
##
@@ -67,6 +67,21 @@ void exception_direct(void)
}
}
+static inline_function bool store_context(int irq, uint32_t *regs)
R
anchao commented on code in PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#discussion_r1872694450
##
arch/arm/src/armv8-m/arm_doirq.c:
##
@@ -67,6 +67,21 @@ void exception_direct(void)
}
}
+static inline_function bool store_context(int irq, uint32_t *regs)
R
jasonbu commented on code in PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#discussion_r1872671751
##
arch/arm/src/armv6-m/arm_doirq.c:
##
@@ -56,6 +56,17 @@ void exception_direct(void)
}
}
+static inline_function bool restore_context(int irq, uint32_t *regs)
jasonbu commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2522250266
also influence this issue #14514
--
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 speci
nuttxpr commented on PR #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073#issuecomment-2522245287
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback
here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues)
No, this PR does not fully meet the NuttX requirements.
hujun260 opened a new pull request, #15073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15073
## Summary
fix regresion from https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/14881
reason:
svc call may trigger hardfalt
## Impact
armv6-m
armv7-m
armv8-m
## Testing
ci
34 matches
Mail list logo
