This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the eCos project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug 1001463] LPC17XX supplementary code/option patch

Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:

--- Comment #4 from Ilija Kocho <> 2012-01-26 10:18:32 GMT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Hi Bernard
> > 
> > Thank you for your contribution.
> > 
> > Past couple of days I have committed patches for Bug 1001395 (including bug
> > 1001443) and Bug 1001432. You may need to synchronize your patches accordingly.
> I've first updated my copy of ecos-cvs before making the patch. More exactly I
> was waiting for you to commit to make my patch ;-)
> > 
> > I could see that some patches cover issues reported (by you) in other bugs. Can
> > you submit them there (and obsolete some patches of my own of course)?
> > Splitting patches will speed up check in for some of them.
> You are probably referring to bug #1001407. Yes the proposed patch includes
> changes similar to attachment 1481 [details] (however I didn't use the word 'omplemented'
> in the comments ;-)) but it adds many more hardware related definitions. Maybe
> you commit your patch, and then I'll submit a new one that won't have the same
> fixes? At the moment I have chosen to make my diff vs the ecos cvs repo and I
> don't consider pending patches. Maybe I should do differently?

Since you have your focus on LPC17xx IMO you could do this fixes better than
me. When you reported the discrepancies I wasn't aware that you are submitting
copyright assignment, otherwise I would have asked you to propose patches.
Now I would ask you to merge the fixes related to missing/wrong #defines. IMO
the best place to submit this "super" patch is bug #1001407 since you can at
the same time obsolete my patch.

Also it will relief me from LPC17xx and shall give me more time for other jobs:
GCC, etc... 

> > 
> > Also, on your initiative we have started some discussion on bit banding at Bug
> > 1001442 so we can continue there with your patches.
> So let's first decide how bitband is handled and afterwards I'll update the
> proposed patch accordingly. Or I can remove the bitband macros in the proposed
> patch.

Your proposal could be a start point, sou you may re-submit macros at Bug
1001442. However, as I mentioned earlier, I would be happy with generic CORTEXM
(or CORTEX_M) macros (where applicable) on architectural level. The headline of
Bug 1001442 could be changed accordingly. Let's continue our discussion there.


Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]