Skip to content

Explicitly set tdb internal flash size for PSoC6 Targets #11560

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 1 commit into from
Sep 27, 2019

Conversation

kyle-cypress
Copy link

Description

The default computation comes up with a size that is too small on PSoC 6 devices. This is a similar change to #11298, but for PSoC 6 boards which implement TDB in internal storage.

Pull request type

@ARMmbed/team-cypress

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

Reviewers

@ARMmbed/team-cypress

Release Notes

The default computation assumes that a flash sector is several times
larger than a flash page. On PSoC 6 targets this is not the case
(the two values are the same) so the computed size is too small.
This is a similar change to 1b1f14d,
but for devices which implement TDB in internal storage.
@ciarmcom ciarmcom requested review from a team September 24, 2019 19:00
@ciarmcom
Copy link
Member

@kyle-cypress, thank you for your changes.
@ARMmbed/mbed-os-storage @ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers please review.

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Sep 25, 2019

CI started

@mbed-ci
Copy link

mbed-ci commented Sep 25, 2019

Test run: FAILED

Summary: 2 of 4 test jobs failed
Build number : 1
Build artifacts

Failed test jobs:

  • jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-GCC_ARM
  • jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-IAR

@kyle-cypress
Copy link
Author

Is the failure an internal CI issue? The log shows a segfault while compiling for NRF52840_DK, which should be impacted by this change.

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Sep 26, 2019

CI restarted

@mbed-ci
Copy link

mbed-ci commented Sep 26, 2019

Test run: FAILED

Summary: 3 of 4 test jobs failed
Build number : 2
Build artifacts

Failed test jobs:

  • jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-ARM
  • jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-GCC_ARM
  • jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-IAR

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Sep 26, 2019

Seems like master has a problem, investigating

cc @ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Sep 26, 2019

Ci restarted, should be good now

@mbed-ci
Copy link

mbed-ci commented Sep 26, 2019

Test run: FAILED

Summary: 1 of 4 test jobs failed
Build number : 3
Build artifacts

Failed test jobs:

  • jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-GCC_ARM

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Sep 26, 2019

Restarted again

@mbed-ci
Copy link

mbed-ci commented Sep 26, 2019

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 11 of 11 test jobs passed
Build number : 4
Build artifacts

@adbridge adbridge merged commit 07b3fb9 into ARMmbed:master Sep 27, 2019
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.

6 participants