Add target C030_R412M #23

wajahat-abbas · 2019-09-16T07:11:10Z

Added support for C030_R412M board. Example is running and tests are passing as well.
Some issues are under discussion here.
2019-09-13_160248.zip

anttiylitokola · 2019-09-16T07:11:13Z

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

fahimalavi · 2019-09-18T05:47:41Z

Anything u-blox can do on this pull request ? @MarceloSalazar

yogpan01 · 2019-09-19T07:13:02Z

Hi @wajahat-ublox we only accept board specific configuration on this example. mbed-os lib hash is maintained by Arm team and always point to some official release tag.
Is your PR dependent on a particular mbed-os version?

wajahat-abbas · 2019-09-19T09:40:47Z

@yogpan01 Yes the hash is for mbed-os 5.13.4 release. I am getting build error with the mbed-os version set in this repository.

teetak01 · 2019-09-27T05:16:13Z

mbed-os.lib

@@ -1 +1 @@
-https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbed-os/#7482462434d5cf718177653ef797547a976a7c5e
+https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbed-os/#1bf6b20df9d3cd5f29f001ffc6f0d0fcbbb96118


Master is now on 5.14.0 so this is not needed.

I will test again on 5.14 and remove this.

teetak01 · 2019-09-27T05:16:43Z

mbed_app.json

+        "UBLOX_C030_R412M": {
+            "target.macros_add"                         : ["MBEDTLS_USER_CONFIG_FILE=\"mbedTLSConfig_mbedOS.h\""],
+            "target.network-default-interface-type"     : "CELLULAR",
+            "target.bootloader_img"                     : "bootloader/mbed-bootloader-ublox_c030_r412m-block_device-kvstore-v1.0.0.bin",


This version usually has been pointing to mbed-bootloader version, I presume this is not that old?

We were not aware of the naming convention followed but yes bootloader was created recently with version v4.0.3. I will rename it. Can you share what naming convention is followed generally?

It's not been documented anywhere, as far as I know. Need to add this to the backlog of things and get it sorted.

Internal ref; https://jira.arm.com/browse/IOTSTOR-942

mbed_app.json

teetak01

How big images are on this target? It is possible to fit it to internal flash with the update, or does it require significant space for the stack?

wajahat-abbas · 2019-09-27T05:52:33Z

@teetak01
The pelion example binary is 456KB. Internal flash is 1MB so i doubt we can fit everything in to internal flash. Also if customer uses this example for our boards then his binary will be even larger and he will have use the SD card any way.

teetak01 · 2019-09-27T05:54:44Z

These examples definately are not for product-level examples, but for simplest on-boarding. Minimizing the dependencies (like external storage) simplifies this. Also removing dependency to external storage also makes the binary much smaller as it does not need to pull in sd-driver.

But I am fine either way.

wajahat-abbas · 2019-10-01T07:52:20Z

@teetak01 @JanneKiiskila
I am testing with mbed-os 5.14 but getting some problems. The tests are passing when network interface is set to ethernet however the test deregister fails on cellular.

If i understand correctly, the test cases uses connect APIs to do a POST on resource 5000/0/1. I checked the printf logs and it seems that POST was received and executed successfully:

Initialize KVStore
Connect to network
Network connected with IP 

Start developer flow
Create resources
Register Pelion Device Management Client

Client registered.
Account ID: 0168e10722cf12dc3bb0a40300000000
Endpoint name: 016d861a099400000000000100100131
Device ID: 016d861a099400000000000100100131

PUT update 0
POST executed
PUT update 0
PUT update 0
PUT update 0
POST deregister executed
Unregistering and disconnecting from the network.
Client unregistered.

However the test case times out and generates failure. I am attaching complete log as well.
I tried sending POST manually from portal however it fails with the following message and device remains registered.

The resource has returned an error for this request. It may not accept the chosen method or is not editable
2019-10-01_122204.zip

MarceloSalazar · 2019-10-01T08:30:51Z

@wajahat-ublox

I am testing with mbed-os 5.14 but getting some problems. The tests are passing when network interface is set to ethernet however the test deregister fails on cellular.

This is suspicious and lets me think that there might be a problem with the network.

Can you please run the integration tests that we've introduced in Mbed OS 5.14?
https://os.mbed.com/docs/mbed-os/v5.14/porting/integration-tests.html

wajahat-abbas · 2019-10-01T09:06:00Z

@MarceloSalazar
Thanks, i will run these tests with mbed-os 5.14 and report back. Meanwhile if you look at the logs, the devuce did receive the POST request and deregistered gracefully but test case still reports failure.

teetak01 · 2019-10-01T09:11:52Z

It is quite possible that the POST response to the server did not leave the device before it disconnected the network.

We did similar fix for mbed-cloud-client-example, but we need to see if we want to add a bit more complexity here: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbed-cloud-client-example/blob/master/main.cpp#L135-L139

wajahat-abbas · 2019-10-01T09:14:02Z

@teetak01
Thank you. This seems like the problem, i will modify main with the approach you shared and see if it helps.

wajahat-abbas · 2019-10-01T11:02:39Z

@MarceloSalazar Integration tests are passing. Please rename the file to .html.
R412M_int.txt

@teetak01 After using set_message_delivery_status_cb, the deregister test case is passing (tested twice). I think this functionality needs to be added in this example especially for cellular targets as responses may be delayed. I can make this part of my PR if you say so. Kindly note update case was skipped in these runs as i just wanted to test new changes for de-register.
2019-10-01_155024.zip
2019-10-01_155338.zip
diff_main.txt

JanneKiiskila · 2019-10-01T13:31:51Z

Yes, we need to get this callback approach fixed to the example.

wajahat-abbas · 2019-10-02T07:45:03Z

I have run complete suite with mbed-os 5.14 (this commit) and tests are passing. Changes in PR itself are only name change of bootloader file. The other changes i had to make are in main.cpp for which diff is attached in previous comment.
2019-10-02_121832.zip

teetak01 · 2019-10-02T09:39:15Z

@wajahat-ublox thanks for verifying. We already made a PR to fix this in the application #31

wajahat-abbas · 2019-10-11T05:40:12Z

Is there anything that is to be done from our side on this PR?

teetak01 · 2019-10-16T15:46:39Z

build-only

teetak01

You could still add line to the README about this new target with "Build-only" note in the end.

teetak01 · 2019-11-22T10:09:17Z

run-ci

teetak01 · 2019-11-28T12:47:07Z

@wajahat-ublox can you rebase this and update the README?

teetak01 · 2019-11-29T07:01:22Z

build-only

iot-pdmc · 2019-11-29T07:32:08Z

Test run: FAILED

Failed to build following targets:
UBLOX_C030_R412M-ARM-TCP
UBLOX_C030_R412M-GCC_ARM-TCP
Build artifacts

posted-by-tag: https://jenkins-client.isgtesting.com/job/mbed-os-example-pelion/

teetak01 · 2019-11-29T08:16:36Z

@wajahat-ublox I tested the compilation locally at it passed, so this mostly just requires rebase.

wajahat-abbas · 2019-12-02T07:16:54Z

@teetak01
I have rebased and pushed to my branch however this PR is not updated, any idea what went wrong?

https://github.com/wajahat-ublox/mbed-os-example-pelion/tree/target_c030_r412m

Also i compiled with GCC_ARM, ARMC5 and ARMC6 and it was successful. Not sure why CI is reporting build errors?

JanneKiiskila · 2019-12-02T07:22:09Z

https://github.com/wajahat-ublox/mbed-os-example-pelion/tree/target_c030_r412m gives 404, so perhaps we do not have access to it? I can't access https://github.com/wajahat-ublox/mbed-os-example-pelion/ either.

wajahat-abbas · 2019-12-02T07:24:51Z

@JanneKiiskila My fork is still showing as private as i forked when this repo was private but now this repo is public?

wajahat-abbas · 2019-12-02T07:39:38Z

@JanneKiiskila I have made it public still PR is not getting updated.

Also i am randomly getting OOPS 500 error page while refreshing my PR and some other PRs as well

#21 #39

teetak01 · 2020-01-09T08:57:15Z

Closing. Already merged via #66

MarceloSalazar added new platform WIP Work in progress labels Sep 25, 2019

MarceloSalazar self-requested a review September 25, 2019 13:29

teetak01 reviewed Sep 27, 2019

View reviewed changes

mbed_app.json Show resolved Hide resolved

teetak01 suggested changes Sep 27, 2019

View reviewed changes

Add target UBLOX_C030_R412M

7191ab3

wajahat-abbas force-pushed the target_c030_r412m branch from 3eb6788 to 7191ab3 Compare October 2, 2019 07:37

wajahat-abbas requested review from JanneKiiskila and teetak01 October 2, 2019 07:48

teetak01 added the Missing hardware in CI label Oct 14, 2019

MarceloSalazar self-assigned this Oct 16, 2019

teetak01 added the Requires CI label Nov 22, 2019

teetak01 reviewed Nov 22, 2019

View reviewed changes

wajahat-abbas requested a review from teetak01 December 2, 2019 07:18

teetak01 mentioned this pull request Dec 2, 2019

Add target C030_U201 #50

Closed

qasim-ublox mentioned this pull request Dec 4, 2019

Add target C030_R412M #66

Merged

teetak01 closed this Jan 9, 2020

		@@ -1 +1 @@
		https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbed-os/#7482462434d5cf718177653ef797547a976a7c5e
		https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbed-os/#1bf6b20df9d3cd5f29f001ffc6f0d0fcbbb96118

Add target C030_R412M #23

Add target C030_R412M #23

Uh oh!

Conversation

wajahat-abbas commented Sep 16, 2019

Uh oh!

anttiylitokola commented Sep 16, 2019

Uh oh!

fahimalavi commented Sep 18, 2019

Uh oh!

yogpan01 commented Sep 19, 2019

Uh oh!

wajahat-abbas commented Sep 19, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

teetak01 Sep 27, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

wajahat-abbas Sep 27, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

teetak01 Sep 27, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

wajahat-abbas Sep 27, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JanneKiiskila Sep 27, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JanneKiiskila Sep 27, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

teetak01 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

wajahat-abbas commented Sep 27, 2019

Uh oh!

teetak01 commented Sep 27, 2019

Uh oh!

wajahat-abbas commented Oct 1, 2019

Uh oh!

MarceloSalazar commented Oct 1, 2019

Uh oh!

wajahat-abbas commented Oct 1, 2019

Uh oh!

teetak01 commented Oct 1, 2019

Uh oh!

wajahat-abbas commented Oct 1, 2019

Uh oh!

wajahat-abbas commented Oct 1, 2019

Uh oh!

JanneKiiskila commented Oct 1, 2019

Uh oh!

wajahat-abbas commented Oct 2, 2019

Uh oh!

teetak01 commented Oct 2, 2019

Uh oh!

wajahat-abbas commented Oct 11, 2019

Uh oh!

teetak01 commented Oct 16, 2019

Uh oh!

teetak01 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

teetak01 commented Nov 22, 2019

Uh oh!

teetak01 commented Nov 28, 2019

Uh oh!

teetak01 commented Nov 29, 2019

Uh oh!

iot-pdmc commented Nov 29, 2019

Test run: FAILED

Uh oh!

teetak01 commented Nov 29, 2019

Uh oh!

wajahat-abbas commented Dec 2, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

wajahat-abbas commented Sep 19, 2019 •

edited

Loading

wajahat-abbas commented Dec 2, 2019 •

edited

Loading

wajahat-abbas commented Dec 2, 2019 •

edited

Loading