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

QSPI write alignment fix for nRF52x #9866

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 1, 2019

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@j3hill
Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 26, 2019

Description

If the start address of the data buffer for a QSPI write operation is not WORD/4-byte aligned, use an aligned 16 x WORD length buffer on the stack

Pull request type

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

@j3hill j3hill requested review from 0xc0170 and offirko Feb 26, 2019

@ciarmcom ciarmcom requested review from screamerbg and ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers Feb 26, 2019

@ciarmcom

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 26, 2019

@j3hill, thank you for your changes.
@screamerbg @ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers please review.

targets/TARGET_NORDIC/TARGET_NRF5x/qspi_api.c Outdated
if (ret != NRF_SUCCESS ) {
return QSPI_STATUS_ERROR;
}
pos+=diff;

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@0xc0170

0xc0170 Feb 27, 2019

Member

small change request : following coding style, using space around operators (pos < *length) and similar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@j3hill

j3hill Feb 27, 2019

Author Contributor

I've made the change, and I'll be sure to make the spacing consistent going forward.

QSPI write alignment fix for nRF52x
If the data buffer for a write is not 4-byte aligned, use an aligned 16 byte buffer on the stack

@j3hill j3hill force-pushed the j3hill:QSPI_Align branch to 5d79ba8 Feb 27, 2019

@j3hill j3hill added needs: review and removed needs: review labels Feb 28, 2019

@0xc0170

0xc0170 approved these changes Mar 1, 2019

@0xc0170 0xc0170 added needs: CI and removed needs: review labels Mar 1, 2019

@0xc0170

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Mar 1, 2019

CI started while idle and waiting for master fix .

@mbed-ci

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 1, 2019

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 13 of 13 test jobs passed
Build number : 1
Build artifacts

@0xc0170 0xc0170 merged commit b5d713d into ARMmbed:master Mar 1, 2019

28 checks passed

continuous-integration/jenkins/pr-head This commit looks good
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
jenkins-ci/build-ARMC5 Success
Details
jenkins-ci/build-ARMC6 Success
Details
jenkins-ci/build-GCC_ARM Success
Details
jenkins-ci/build-IAR8 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-ARMC5 Success
Details
jenkins-ci/mbed2-build-ARMC6 Success
Details
jenkins-ci/mbed2-build-GCC_ARM Success
Details
jenkins-ci/mbed2-build-IAR8 Success
Details
jenkins-ci/unittests Success
Details
travis-ci/astyle Local astyle testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/docs Local docs testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/doxy-spellcheck Local doxy-spellcheck testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/events Passed, runtime is 10422 cycles
Details
travis-ci/gitattributestest Local gitattributestest testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/include_check Local include_check testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/licence_check Local licence_check testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/littlefs Passed, code size is 8408B (+0.00%)
Details
travis-ci/psa-autogen Local psa-autogen testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/tools-py2.7 Local tools-py2.7 testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/tools-py3.5 Local tools-py3.5 testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/tools-py3.6 Local tools-py3.6 testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/tools-py3.7 Local tools-py3.7 testing has passed
Details

@0xc0170 0xc0170 removed the ready for merge label Mar 1, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.