Skip to content
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

Nuvoton: Enlarge required deep sleep latency #11020

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 14, 2019

Conversation

@ccli8
Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 11, 2019

Description

This PR is to pass wake-up from deep-sleep test such as mbedmicro-rtos-mbed-systimer for Nuvoton targets when in tickless from lp-ticker mode.

Pull request type

[X] Fix
[ ] Refactor
[ ] Target update
[ ] Functionality change
[ ] Docs update
[ ] Test update
[ ] Breaking change
@0xc0170
Copy link
Member

left a comment

One question - why 1 fixes it ? why not 2 for instance - might be good to explain this in the commit itself. It's not just to pass the test - why it fails (what is this fixing, is there some reconfig in place that takes time and introducing this latency?). I might be asking too much but this might be helpful to know for a reader.

[Nuvoton] Fix mbedmicro-rtos-mbed-systimer/Wake up from deep sleep fa…
…iling

This test requires total latency (tot = h/w + s/w) (wakeup from deepsleep) be
under 1ms. To check the issue, measure total latency on Nuvoton targets:

TARGET      EXP(us)     EXP+TOL(us) ACT(us)
NANO130     42000       43000       42939
NUC472      42000       43000       42236
M453        42000       43000       43274
M487        42000       43000       42877
M2351       42000       43000       43213

Checking h/w spec, h/w latency (wakeup time from normal power-down mode) on
M487/M2351 is just 1us (n/a on other targets). S/W latency plays the major
part here.

S/W latency relies on system performance. On Nuvoton targets, 'LPTICKER_DELAY_TICKS'
possibly complicates the test. Anyway, to pass the test, add extra 1ms latency
(deep-sleep-latency) in targets.json for Nuvoton targets.

@ccli8 ccli8 force-pushed the OpenNuvoton:nuvoton_wakeup_latency branch from 769a530 to 1e5a52a Jul 12, 2019

@ccli8

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jul 12, 2019

Add the commit message. According to h/w spec, h/w latency is 1us on Nuvoton targets. The total latency majorly comes from s/w latency. Dependent on system performance (cpu+cache+...), s/w latency ranges from 250us to 1250us on Nuvoton targets. Default tolerance is 1ms. Add extra 1ms tolerance for this test.

On non-Nuvoton target K64F, its total latency is 400us. Without its h/w spec, assuming its h/w latency is also small, s/w latency still plays the major part.

@ccli8

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jul 18, 2019

Any update?

@ccli8

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 8, 2019

@0xc0170 0xc0170 self-requested a review Aug 9, 2019

@0xc0170
0xc0170 approved these changes Aug 9, 2019
Copy link
Member

left a comment

Thanks for updating the commit msg

@0xc0170 0xc0170 added the needs: CI label Aug 9, 2019

@0xc0170

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 9, 2019

CI started

@mbed-ci

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 9, 2019

Test run: FAILED

Summary: 3 of 11 test jobs failed
Build number : 1
Build artifacts

Failed test jobs:

  • jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_exporter
  • jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_dynamic-memory-usage
  • jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_greentea-test
@0xc0170

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 12, 2019

Restarted entire CI pipeline (failures not related to this changeset).

@mbed-ci

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 12, 2019

Test run: FAILED

Summary: 3 of 11 test jobs failed
Build number : 2
Build artifacts

Failed test jobs:

  • jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_dynamic-memory-usage
  • jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_exporter
  • jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_greentea-test
@0xc0170

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 13, 2019

Restarted tests, exporters have an issue on master, will be fixed

@0xc0170

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 14, 2019

CI restarted

@mbed-ci

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 14, 2019

Test run: FAILED

Summary: 1 of 12 test jobs failed
Build number : 3
Build artifacts

Failed test jobs:

  • jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_pdmc-test
@0xc0170

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 14, 2019

jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_pdmc-test

Not valid CI config, new jobs will have this fixed. All good

@0xc0170 0xc0170 added ready for merge and removed needs: CI labels Aug 14, 2019

@0xc0170 0xc0170 merged commit a6c316a into ARMmbed:master Aug 14, 2019

27 checks passed

continuous-integration/jenkins/pr-head This commit looks good
Details
continuous-integration/jenkins/pr-merge Manually fixed status
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
jenkins-ci/build-ARM Success
Details
jenkins-ci/build-GCC_ARM Success
Details
jenkins-ci/build-IAR Success
Details
jenkins-ci/cloud-client-test Success
Details
jenkins-ci/dynamic-memory-usage RTOS ROM(+0 bytes) RAM(+0 bytes)
Details
jenkins-ci/exporter Success
Details
jenkins-ci/greentea-test Success
Details
jenkins-ci/mbed2-build-ARM Success
Details
jenkins-ci/mbed2-build-GCC_ARM Success
Details
jenkins-ci/mbed2-build-IAR Success
Details
jenkins-ci/unittests Success
Details
travis-ci/astyle Success!
Details
travis-ci/docs Success!
Details
travis-ci/doxy-spellcheck Success!
Details
travis-ci/events Success! Runtime is 8571 cycles.
Details
travis-ci/gitattributestest Success!
Details
travis-ci/include_check Success!
Details
travis-ci/licence_check Success!
Details
travis-ci/littlefs Success! Code size is 8448B.
Details
travis-ci/psa-autogen Success!
Details
travis-ci/tools-py2.7 Success!
Details
travis-ci/tools-py3.5 Success!
Details
travis-ci/tools-py3.6 Success!
Details
travis-ci/tools-py3.7 Success!
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.