Skip to content

Nuvoton: Modify wait ns(...) to provide more accurate implementation #11019

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 17, 2019

Conversation

ccli8
Copy link
Contributor

@ccli8 ccli8 commented Jul 11, 2019

Description

This PR modifies wait_ns(...) for Nuvoton targets:

  • For NUMAKER_PFM_M2351 NS, already locating on SRAM, refine wait_ns(...) to synchronize to common version.
  • For NUMAKER_PFM_NANO130/NUMAKER_PFM_NUC472, locate wait_ns(...) to SRAM from flash because flash code performance cannot achieve zero-wait state without cache support.

Pull request type

[X] Fix
[ ] Refactor
[ ] Target update
[ ] Functionality change
[ ] Docs update
[ ] Test update
[ ] Breaking change

ccli8 added 3 commits July 8, 2019 17:51
1.  Add missing header file for mbed_mpu_manager_lock_ram_execution()/
    mbed_mpu_manager_unlock_ram_execution() to avoid compile warning.
2.  Locate delay_loop_code() on 16-byte boundary (sync to common version).
3.  Optimize delay_loop macro (sync to common version).
NANO100 series doesn't support cache and so cannot provide zero-wait state
flash performance.
NUC472 series doesn't support cache but supports branch buffer. But it still
cannot provide zero-wait state flash performance.
@mbed-ci
Copy link

mbed-ci commented Jul 15, 2019

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 11 of 11 test jobs passed
Build number : 1
Build artifacts

@SeppoTakalo SeppoTakalo merged commit 02f8fbd into ARMmbed:master Jul 17, 2019
@ccli8 ccli8 deleted the nuvoton_wait-ns branch July 18, 2019 01:26
@ccli8
Copy link
Contributor Author

ccli8 commented Jul 18, 2019

@SeppoTakalo One thing to note. This PR relies on #10683 which is targeted for 5.14.0. Correct the release version?

@evedon
Copy link
Contributor

evedon commented Jul 26, 2019

Indeed, the target should have been 5.14.0.

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.

7 participants