From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4115 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2007 09:18:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 3922 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Aug 2007 09:18:11 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from londo.lunn.ch (HELO londo.lunn.ch) (80.238.139.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:18:10 +0000 Received: from lunn by londo.lunn.ch with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1INmLj-0001uh-00; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:18:03 +0200 Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:18:00 -0000 From: Andrew Lunn To: Hans Rosenfeld Cc: eCos Disuss Message-ID: <20070822091803.GH31057@lunn.ch> Mail-Followup-To: Hans Rosenfeld , eCos Disuss References: <21907044.603801184047861289.JavaMail.servlet@kundenserver> <20070817140209.GA26081@grumpf.hope-2000.org> <20070817171322.GB26081@grumpf.hope-2000.org> <20070820151336.GA1125@grumpf.hope-2000.org> <20070822082451.GF31057@lunn.ch> <20070822084026.GA2126@grumpf.hope-2000.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070822084026.GA2126@grumpf.hope-2000.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: [ECOS] Re: LPC2xxx patch for support of vectored interrupt controller X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00106.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 10:40:26AM +0200, Hans Rosenfeld wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 10:24:51AM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > +#ifdef CYGNUM_KERNEL_INTR_TEST_PRIO > > > +#define PRIO_0 CYGNUM_KERNEL_INTR_TEST_PRIO > > > +#define PRIO_1 CYGNUM_KERNEL_INTR_TEST_PRIO > > > +#else > > > +#define PRIO_0 0 > > > +#define PRIO_1 1 > > > +#endif > > > > I've not spent time to really understand this change. But a first > > glance suggests this is wrong. Shouldn't it be > > > > #define PRIO_1 (CYGNUM_KERNEL_INTR_TEST_PRIO + 1) > > > > in order to maintain the old behaviour. > > On the LPC2xxx there is only one interrupt priority (16) that can be > used more than once. The reason for making this configurable is to make > this test use only this priority, even if this is different from the old > behaviour. I don't think this is a problem since the interrupts are never > triggered in those tests. I think much better way to do this is: cdl_option CYGNUM_KERNEL_INTR_TEST_PRIO_A { display "interrupt priority used by intr0/kintr0 test" flavor data default_value 0 legal_values 0 to 16 description "The intr0 and kintr0 tests create several interrupts. This option selects the interrupt priority to be used for these interrupts." } cdl_option CYGNUM_KERNEL_INTR_TEST_PRIO_B { display "interrupt priority used by intr0/kintr0 test" flavor data default_value 1 legal_values 0 to 16 description "The intr0 and kintr0 tests create several interrupts. This option selects the interrupt priority to be used for these interrupts." } and then in the LPC2XXX hal statements like requires { is_active(CYGNUM_KERNEL_INTR_TEST_PRIO_A) implies { CYGNUM_KERNEL_INTR_TEST_PRIO_A == 16 } } requires { is_active(CYGNUM_KERNEL_INTR_TEST_PRIO_B) implies { CYGNUM_KERNEL_INTR_TEST_PRIO_B == 16 } } It makes the test more flexible. You can how for example use vectors 5 and 15 which was not possible before. Andrew -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss