Michal Princ

Hello @infn-ke , I am sorry for late response. The rpmsg_lite implementation is binary compatible with Linux rpmsg, i.e. on the protocol level. We have no tests to confirm the...

It's the inaccurate comment.

Good point. Unfortunately, we already passed the feature freeze date so I can prepare the update but not be used in coming v4.0.0

Yes, agree but the date is gone, unfortunately. Anyway, will provide this in the further release. Thanks for this idea.

Hello @fmntf , thank you for reporting this. I think the MU_SendMsg() function call in platform_notify() should be replaced by non-blocking version of this function, i.e. by MU_SendMsgNonBlocking. As you...

Hello Francesco, sorry for late response ... I have discussed this case with colleague who made the QM port ... the MU_SendMsgNonBlocking can't be used because there are multiple virtual...

Hello @workzb this is a known weak point of Linux RPMsg vs. RPMsg_Lite communication. Cultivated approach is to re-initialize the rpmsg_lite and rpmsg driver each time new m4 app. is...

Hello @workzb , I am sorry for late response. To be honest, I am not involved in building of Linux RPMsg vs. RPMsg_Lite type of applications. However, from what I...

Hello @infn-ke , yes, your calculation is correct.

> Thanks for confirming the shared memory size requirements! > > The parameters `RL_BUFFER_COUNT` and `RL_BUFFER_PAYLOAD_SIZE ` seems to have the requirement of the being a power of 2, like...