-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.5k
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
boards organization #10875
boards organization #10875
Conversation
Very cool? |
e26642b
to
101e001
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@dagar I have no issue with the command name changes. I do question the CONFIG_BOARD_NAME changes. What it that motivation? if it has to be can it have a "_" to seperate the vendor and board in it?
At the moment CONFIG_BOARD_NAME has to be consistent with BOARD at the PX4 level. I don't really care for it either, but once we transition to nuttx custom boards (instead of tricking it by copying into the tree) it will go away. |
fair enough. What do we need to do to get this in? |
Can we define the testing that needs to happen before this gets merged? |
e946813
to
cc4f554
Compare
I have tested on v2 HW with uavcan downloading px4cannode. That is all working. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice, looks good.
.ci/Jenkinsfile-compile
Outdated
image: docker_images.nuttx, | ||
archive: false | ||
] | ||
|
||
def rpi_builds = [ | ||
target: ["posix_rpi_cross", "posix_bebop_default"], | ||
target: ["emlidnavio2_cross", "parrotbebop_default"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's a bit strange that the company and board are not separated. Is there a reason? I.e. emlid-navio2_cross
would already help.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The main reason it's been kept like this so far is to minimize migration pain.
px4fmu-v5_default -> px4_fmu-v5_default
I'd still like to split, but we'll need everyone onboard so that we can do a coordinated documentation update.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My lets fix this once and for all. Let's move forward with the name change. Provide an "is" "was" list in the commit and we can all adjust or fix what it breaks.
.travis.yml
Outdated
@@ -28,5 +28,5 @@ addons: | |||
description: "Build submitted via Travis CI" | |||
notification_email: ci@px4.io | |||
build_command_prepend: "make distclean" | |||
build_command: "make posix_sitl_default" | |||
build_command: "make px4sitl_default" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This will need docs update (@hamishwillee fyi)
I've pushed a commit to change the naming convention to include an underscore between the vendor and model. The platform prefix is also no longer necessary.
|
7620ad0
to
da590a3
Compare
- explicitly set TOOLCHAIN on all NuttX targets
Tested on pixhawk 4 and pixhawk 4 mini. No issues, Good flights. |
tested on pixhawk v4 pro |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@dagar Nice cleanup.
👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 @dagar 13k deletions ❤️ 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 |
As previously discussed in conjunction with #7705, #8777, #7806, #8127, #7318, #8923, I'd like to consolidate all components of a board into a single location.
Why?
Example
In this current PR I've sorted the boards by VENDOR (eg PX4) and then by MODEL (eg FMU-v2). The downside is it changes the common naming from px4fmu-v2 to px4_fmu-v2. This is somewhat flexible if people feel strongly about it.
Thoughts/comments/concerns/complaints?