-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
Remove FEATURE_LWIP #7287
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
Remove FEATURE_LWIP #7287
Conversation
Leave the FEATURE_LWIP enabled in build scripts so that it does not break any builds. Removed 'feature_add: ["LWIP"]' on all targets.
This is dropped by linker so does not cause any RAM/ROM cost.
@kjbracey-arm please review. |
Hi |
@@ -845,7 +845,7 @@ EXCLUDE_PATTERNS = */tools/* \ | |||
*/features/mbedtls/* \ | |||
*/features/storage/* \ | |||
*/features/unsupported/* \ | |||
*/features/FEATURE_LWIP/* \ | |||
*/features/lwipstack/* \ |
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 probably more straightforward just to be /features/lwip
, I think. Does the "stack" really add anything in this context?
LWIPStack
versus LWIPInterface
objects kind of happened because they were in a single namespace, and reflected the underlying NetworkStack
and NetworkInterface
. But in the filing system like this, I think just lwip
is fine. Maybe at some point lwip
might end up in a networkstacks
folder, if there were that many.
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 possible there should be a general tidy-up to add a top-level features/networking
or something too. But I think that's out of scope for this. Anyway, for now don't try to express something in your leafname that would be better expressed in a directory structure.
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.
Within the lwipstack
there is already folder lwip
which is the ... stack.. :D
Would lwip/lwip
look terrible? Currently the stack is in lwipstack/lwip
Travis failure in events is similar to the one we had for nanostack move? Please update |
Why? Maybe the title is a bit wrong, but I'm not removing the LwIP stack. So the |
I'll run first CI round /morph build |
Build : SUCCESSBuild number : 2439 Triggering tests/morph test |
Exporter Build : SUCCESSBuild number : 2071 |
Test : SUCCESSBuild number : 2219 |
Waiting on @bulislaw for a final review. |
Description
Follow up on removal of
FEATURE_NANOSTACK
Now do the same for LWIP so that all networking functions are enabled on all builds so that adding networking capabilities to targets that did not originally have those, do not require enabling of any feature.
Does not affect RAM/ROM usage.
Pull request type