-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.7k
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
Fixes for topic-counters branch #12634
Fixes for topic-counters branch #12634
Conversation
29b4488
to
9fdaff5
Compare
Test was not aligned with changes in the API. Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Chruscinski <[email protected]>
counter_callback_t has been previously prefixed with __deprecated but it is used in prototype of deprecated function (counter_set_alarm). It seems that compiler generates the warning even though function is not used. Removed __deprecated prefix from the typedef, keeping it for the function only. Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Chruscinski <[email protected]>
9fdaff5
to
ffc538d
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## topic-counters #12634 +/- ##
===============================================
Coverage 53.94% 53.94%
===============================================
Files 242 242
Lines 27654 27654
Branches 6717 6717
===============================================
Hits 14917 14917
Misses 9932 9932
Partials 2805 2805 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
nrf_rtc_timer was selecting counter RTC1 instance even though it is not using counter API at all. Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Chruscinski <[email protected]>
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.
Looks fine except for what happened during the rebase, which this also fixes.
@@ -154,7 +154,6 @@ config NRF_RTC_TIMER | |||
default y | |||
depends on CLOCK_CONTROL_NRF | |||
select TICKLESS_CAPABLE | |||
select COUNTER_RTC1 |
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.
How did this come back?! This was removed in #12475 by 85d10e0.
It came back because a rebase later added 5ef145d by repeating fragments from a really old commit.
Rewrites of the base branch must be carefully monitored to confirm they do not discard material from merged commits or we'll have no idea what we've got in the implementation.
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.
yes, not sure exactly but it's definitely my fault. Lesson learnt is to never push directly (not through PR), event if it's just rebasing on master.
removing @anangl as he is away this week. |
It's the intermediate step before #11572 goes in. It fixes compilation of test for nrf peripherals (together with #12617).