Re: [I] Proposed improvements to the sensor framwork [nuttx]

xiaoxiang781216 commented on issue #10644: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/10644#issuecomment-2593312419 Yes, this is an acceptable approach to handle no-FPU case. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub an

Re: [I] Proposed improvements to the sensor framwork [nuttx]

raiden00pl commented on issue #10644: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/10644#issuecomment-2592061754 > The biggest problem I see now is forcing the user to use float. This is not the best solution for applications without FPU (e.g. CM0 which are often used in sensor nodes). What

Re: [I] Proposed improvements to the sensor framwork [nuttx]

xiaoxiang781216 commented on issue #10644: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/10644#issuecomment-1754454922 the built in uorb is compatible with PX4, but the performance and size will be much better. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the m

Re: [I] Proposed improvements to the sensor framwork [nuttx]

minrui-hust commented on issue #10644: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/10644#issuecomment-1754359019 ”uorb“ is borrow from PX4，which is really a event-driven middle layer for inter-thread communication. And "uorb" is inspired by ROS (but with limited functionality and flexibilit