Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add REALTEK_RTL8195AM to mbed-os #4438

Merged
merged 69 commits into from
Jun 4, 2017
Merged

Add REALTEK_RTL8195AM to mbed-os #4438

merged 69 commits into from
Jun 4, 2017

Conversation

0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

@0xc0170 0xc0170 commented Jun 3, 2017

Rebased #3758

Archcady added 30 commits June 3, 2017 20:14
consistent with other tools
correct proprietary headers for some of our codes
also fix a minor building error
…tek/Lwipopts_conf.h to features/FEATURE_LWIP/lwip-interface/lwip-eth/arch/TARGET_Realtek/Lwipopts_conf.h
also reduce replicated code
correct heap size in icf file;
improve REALTEK_RTL8195AM.py
right now still need to add flag in gcc.py, we are fixing!
@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor Author

0xc0170 commented Jun 3, 2017

There were no conflicts, so should be all the same !

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor Author

0xc0170 commented Jun 3, 2017

/morph test

@mbed-bot
Copy link

mbed-bot commented Jun 3, 2017

Result: FAILURE

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph test

Output

mbed Build Number: 434

Build failed!

…TL8195AM

There is an easy default implementation of spi_master_block_write that
just calls spi_master_write in a loop, so the default implementation
of spi_master_block_write has been added to all targets.
@sg-
Copy link
Contributor

sg- commented Jun 3, 2017

/morph test

@mbed-bot
Copy link

mbed-bot commented Jun 3, 2017

Result: FAILURE

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph test

Output

mbed Build Number: 435

Build failed!

In class MBRBlockDevice the tole32 function had used union member
names u32 and u8. The introduction of REALTEK_RTL8195AM cauesd a
conflict with type names in basic_types given they're aliased as
macros to uint32_t and uint8_t respectively.
@sg-
Copy link
Contributor

sg- commented Jun 3, 2017

/morph test

@sg-
Copy link
Contributor

sg- commented Jun 4, 2017

I think the proper fix to 1fa30b7 should have been:

diff --git a/targets/TARGET_Realtek/TARGET_AMEBA/sdk/soc/realtek/common/bsp/basic_types.h b/targets/TARGET_Realtek/TARGET_AMEBA/sdk/soc/realtek/common/bsp/basic_types.h
index 66f23546a..da881fcab 100644
--- a/targets/TARGET_Realtek/TARGET_AMEBA/sdk/soc/realtek/common/bsp/basic_types.h
+++ b/targets/TARGET_Realtek/TARGET_AMEBA/sdk/soc/realtek/common/bsp/basic_types.h
@@ -63,14 +63,14 @@ typedef signed long long        __int64_t;
 typedef unsigned long long      __uint64_t;
 #endif

-#define s8                      int8_t
-#define u8                      uint8_t
-#define s16                     int16_t
-#define u16                     uint16_t
-#define s32                     int32_t
-#define u32                     uint32_t
-#define s64                     int64_t
-#define u64                     uint64_t
+typedef int8_t s8;
+typedef uint8_t u8;
+typedef int16_t s16;
+typedef uint16_t u16;
+typedef int32_t s32;
+typedef uint32_t u32;
+typedef int64_t s64;
+typedef uint64_t u64;

 #ifdef CONFIG_MBED_ENABLED
 #ifndef BOOL

but I would like that change to come from Realtek in case the bsp/hal is copy paste from another release and wouldn't want a future regression.

@mbed-bot
Copy link

mbed-bot commented Jun 4, 2017

Result: SUCCESS

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph test

Output

mbed Build Number: 436

All builds and test passed!

@sg- sg- merged commit 273f653 into ARMmbed:master Jun 4, 2017
@sg- sg- removed the needs: CI label Jun 4, 2017
@0xc0170 0xc0170 deleted the dev_realtek branch June 4, 2017 14:20
@Archcady
Copy link
Contributor

Archcady commented Jun 5, 2017

I think the fix is ok, we'll merge these changes back to our SDK. Thanks.

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor Author

0xc0170 commented Jun 5, 2017

@Archcady Please review #4439

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants