-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
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
cpu/nrf9160: add Kconfig dependencies #17291
Conversation
.murdock
Outdated
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ mega-xplained | |||
microbit | |||
native | |||
nrf52840dk | |||
nrf59160 |
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.
nrf59160 | |
nrf9160 |
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.
ups
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.
I guess I was still asleep this morning...
Should be nrf9160dk...
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.
done
9e09545
to
a016eee
Compare
@@ -37,4 +37,6 @@ config HAS_CPU_NRF9160 | |||
help | |||
Indicates that the current cpu is 'nrf9160'. | |||
|
|||
rsource "vectors/Kconfig" | |||
|
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.
I think you are missing: source "$(RIOTCPU)/nrf5x_common/Kconfig"
. As that one already includes the cortexm_common
Kconfig you can remove it from here.
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.
@leandrolanzieri The problem here is that nRF9160 doesn't fully reuse nrf5x_common for now because some work is still needed on the driver side. That's why this CPU defines by itself which features it has instead of relying on nrf5x_common.
If this is problem, I can have a look to fix the remaining issues with the shared drivers first, then let nRF9160 fully relies on nrf5x_common. What do you think ?
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.
But if we don't select CPU_COMMON_NRF5X
its features should not be provided, right? This is currently failing because MODULE_NRF5X_COMMON_PERIPH
is missing (defined in cpu/nrf5x_common/periph/Kconfig.nrf5x
)
Its green now, should I squash @leandrolanzieri @dylad? |
Go ahead ! |
9847661
to
4aaf8f1
Compare
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.
LGTM.
Here we go ! |
Thanks! |
Contribution description
These models modules for nrf9160 CPU and the only BOARD using it.
Testing procedure
Issues/PRs references
Part of #16875