OpenOCD Debugging Support for FreeRTOS Usage Instructions

[fanghuaqi]

Important

Adds documentation for debugging FreeRTOS with OpenOCD and updates mkdocs.yml to include it.

• Documentation:
  • Adds 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md with instructions for debugging FreeRTOS using OpenOCD.
  • Includes steps for setting up Nuclei Studio IDE, modifying portmacro.h and openocd_evalsoc.cfg.
  • Specifies support for FreeRTOS only, excluding Zephyr, ThreadX, and UCOSII.
• Configuration:
  • Updates mkdocs.yml to include the new document in the navigation.

^{This description was created by for d994810. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[fanghuaqi]

多了一行空格

[fanghuaqi]

nuclei_sdk/SoC/evalsoc/Board/nuclei_fpga_eval/openocd_evalsoc.cfg -> nuclei_sdk/SoC/evalsoc/Board/nuclei_fpga_eval/openocd_evalsoc.cfg

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to 81c0c1b in 1 minute and 32 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 118 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 9 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:12

• Draft comment:
  Consider using forward slashes in image paths for better cross-platform compatibility, and verify if 'asserts' is intentionally spelled or if it should be 'assets'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% While the suggestion about forward slashes is technically correct for better cross-platform compatibility, this is a minor formatting issue. The 'asserts' vs 'assets' could be a typo, but without more context we can't be certain it's not intentionally named 'asserts'. These are relatively minor issues that don't affect functionality. The path format suggestion could improve cross-platform compatibility. The potential typo could be confusing for future readers. However, these are minor formatting issues that don't affect functionality. The images are working as-is, and 'asserts' could be intentional. This comment should be deleted as it addresses minor formatting issues and makes assumptions about naming that we can't verify.

2. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:99

• Draft comment:
  Add a newline at the end of the file to conform with best practices.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The file already has blank lines at the end, even if they're not perfectly formatted. While having a single newline at the end is a common best practice, this is an extremely minor formatting issue that doesn't affect functionality. The comment seems unnecessarily pedantic given there are already blank lines present. Perhaps enforcing consistent end-of-file formatting could be important for version control or text processing tools? While consistent file endings are good practice, this is too minor of an issue to warrant a PR comment, especially since blank lines already exist. Delete this comment as it's too minor of a formatting issue to be worth addressing in a PR review.

3. mkdocs.yml:33

• Draft comment:
  Navigation update looks correct; ensure the new document is positioned as intended in the site structure.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

4. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:27

• Draft comment:
  There's a duplicate of the character '的' in '自带的的OpenOCD'. Consider removing one occurrence so it reads '自带的OpenOCD' for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% While the comment is technically correct about the duplicate character, we need to consider if this is the type of comment that should be kept. The rules state we should focus on code logic issues, not purely informative comments. This is a minor grammatical fix in documentation that doesn't affect functionality. The duplicate character does make the text less professional, and fixing it would improve documentation quality. Documentation clarity could be considered important. However, the rules explicitly state to focus on code logic issues and not make purely informative comments. This is a minor text fix that doesn't affect functionality. The comment should be deleted as it's purely about documentation formatting and doesn't affect code logic or functionality.

5. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:39

• Draft comment:
  The image markdown on line 39 is immediately followed by text without a newline, which can affect readability. Consider adding a newline after the image to separate it from the subsequent text.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This is a pure formatting suggestion in a documentation file. While it might slightly improve readability, it's a very minor issue. The documentation is still perfectly readable and understandable without this change. The rules state not to make purely informative comments or comments about obvious/unimportant things. The formatting could potentially affect how some markdown renderers display the content. Missing newlines in markdown can sometimes cause unexpected rendering issues. Even if there might be rendering issues, they would be immediately visible to the author when previewing the markdown. This doesn't require a code review comment to catch. This comment should be deleted as it's too minor and doesn't highlight a significant issue that needs addressing.

6. mkdocs.yml:10

• Draft comment:
  Typo detected in the filename '3-print_memor_usage_in_ide.md'. Consider renaming it to '3-print_memory_usage_in_ide.md' for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_leQaJn8qQQqJ23E8

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[fanghuaqi]

你这里用的bit应该要用单核的bit

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 6c2c037 in 2 minutes and 1 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 112 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 7 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:2

• Draft comment:
  Removed the '问题说明' section. Ensure that any essential troubleshooting context is documented elsewhere.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is asking the PR author to ensure that essential troubleshooting context is documented elsewhere. This falls under the rule of not asking the author to ensure something is documented or tested. Therefore, it should be removed.

2. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:18

• Draft comment:
  Step reordering: '创建原始工程' is now step1. Confirm that this new order fits the expected project workflow.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

3. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:32

• Draft comment:
  In the portmacro.h modification, clarify when to use the 32‐bit configuration versus the 64‐bit variant (commented out).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% The comment is asking for clarification on when to use different configurations, which is not a direct code suggestion or a request for a test. It seems to be asking for an explanation, which violates the rules.

4. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:48

• Draft comment:
  Ensure the openocd_evalsoc.cfg change (adding '-rtos FreeRTOS' on line 118) is compatible with all relevant SDK versions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

5. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:67

• Draft comment:
  Add a trailing newline at the end of the file for POSIX compliance and consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

6. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:34

• Draft comment:
  Consider using consistent file path separators (backslashes vs. forward slashes) to avoid potential confusion.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This is a documentation file in markdown format. While consistency in path separators is nice, both forward and backward slashes work on most systems. This is a purely cosmetic suggestion that doesn't affect functionality. The paths are clearly understandable either way. The inconsistency could potentially confuse readers, especially if they need to copy-paste the paths. Different systems might handle the separators differently. While technically true, this is a minor formatting issue in documentation that doesn't impact functionality. The paths will work either way on modern systems. Delete the comment as it's a minor cosmetic suggestion that doesn't materially improve the code or documentation.

7. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:14

• Draft comment:
  Typographical issue: In the sentence "使用NucleiStudio 202502自带的的OpenOCD即可。" there is a duplicate '的'. Please remove one of them to read "使用NucleiStudio 202502自带的OpenOCD即可。".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_yyg4ucI1e1ZpYIcW

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 44ae0ec in 30 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 31 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:27

• Draft comment:
  Removed extraneous blank lines after board flash instructions; improves formatting.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

2. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:43

• Draft comment:
  Removed extra blank lines before the 'step3: 修改openocd_evalsoc.cfg内容' header; document looks cleaner.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

3. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:56

• Draft comment:
  Removed extraneous blank lines before the 'step4：openocd调试工程' header; maintains consistent formatting.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

4. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:14

• Draft comment:
  There's a typographical error in this line: the word '的' is repeated ('自带的的OpenOCD'). Please remove one instance of '的' for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_BDAMRPoKzk3AaEmr

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed d994810 in 40 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 12 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:49

• Draft comment:
  Removed extraneous blank line from the code block. This change improves formatting consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

2. 26-debugging_support_for_freertos_by_openocd.md:14

• Draft comment:
  Typographical Error: The sentence "使用NucleiStudio 202502自带的的OpenOCD即可。" contains a duplicate "的". Consider removing the extra one so it reads "使用NucleiStudio 202502自带的OpenOCD即可。".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_GGvo8YZYm4L2NMJA

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}