system/uorb: require that LIBC_FLOATINGPOINT be enabled for DEBUG_UORB

[linguini1]

Summary

This pull request closes the issue raised here.

Now DEBUG_UORB depends on LIBC_FLOATINGPOINT. This is because it is not possible to view sensor debug output without this enabled, which is only a problem for systems without an FPU (systems with an FPU have this enabled by default).

Impact

Users now have to enable LIBC_FLOATINGPOINT on systems without an FPU in order to use DEBUG_UORB. The dependency marked with depends on means that the uORB debug option will not be visible until LIBC_FLOATINGPOINT is selected, but this was determined to be acceptable in the discussion under the linked issue.

This prevents the annoyance of re-flashing the device because floating point printing was disabled, rendering debug output almost useless.

I have also included a compile time error for the configuration mismatch.

Testing

Verified that enabling LIBC_FLOATINGPOINT caused DEBUG_UORB to appear and that the dependency was marked in Kconfig.

Output after building by selecting LIBC_FLOATINGPOINT followed by DEBUG_UORB in Kconfig.

nsh> uorb_listener

Mointor objects num:4
object_name:sensor_mag, object_instance:0
object_name:sensor_gyro, object_instance:0
object_name:sensor_baro, object_instance:0
object_name:sensor_accel, object_instance:0
sensor_mag(now:203370000):timestamp:203370000,x:-63.750000,y:-10.500000,z:-2280
sensor_accel(now:203380000):timestamp:203370000,x:0.047856,y:-0.196212,z:6.5380
sensor_baro(now:203390000):timestamp:203390000,pressure:496.140015,temperature0

[cederom]

Thank you @linguini1 :-)

Please remember to provide test logs, and please update git commit message desription, like:

This fixes broken float in printf() like sensor debug messages
on systems without an FPU (systems with an FPU have this
enabled by default) by making DEBUG_UORB depend on
LIBC_FLOATINGPOINT. Solution dicussed and agreed in:
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/15599.

[lupyuen]

@linguini1 Could you fill in the Description inside the Commit? As discussed in the Mailing List:
https://lists.apache.org/thread/mn4l1tmr6fj46o2y9vvrmfcrgyo48s5d

Thanks for all your awesome contributions! :-)

[linguini1]

Thanks @lupyuen and @cederom! I had misunderstood the commit description to just be the short description, not a detailed one. I have updated the commit message and added testing logs. Let me know if anything else is required, I'll adhere to this better going forward!

[lupyuen]

Yep it looks great thanks! Quick Hack: Normally I copy the Description section of the PR into the Commit Description :-)