From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25312 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2009 10:40:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 25301 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Sep 2009 10:40:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cheviot20.ncl.ac.uk (HELO cheviot20.ncl.ac.uk) (128.240.234.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:40:20 +0000 Received: from cheviot20.ncl.ac.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cheviot20.ncl.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n81AeH8w032008; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 11:40:17 +0100 Received: from exhubdb01.campus.ncl.ac.uk (exhubdb01.ncl.ac.uk [10.8.239.3]) by cheviot20.ncl.ac.uk (cheviot20.ncl.ac.uk [128.240.234.73]) envelope-from with ESMTP id l80BeH0731627230fL ret-id none; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:40:17 +0100 Received: from EXSAN01.campus.ncl.ac.uk ([10.8.239.16]) by exhubdb01.campus.ncl.ac.uk ([10.8.239.3]) with mapi; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 11:40:17 +0100 From: Steven Clugston To: Andrew Lunn CC: ecos-discuss Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: <4DCF6DBD3535F742BB167C528BBEE98038278513D9@EXSAN01.campus.ncl.ac.uk> References: <4DCF6DBD3535F742BB167C528BBEE9803824B9D6A5@EXSAN01.campus.ncl.ac.uk> <4DCF6DBD3535F742BB167C528BBEE9803827660766@EXSAN01.campus.ncl.ac.uk> <4DCF6DBD3535F742BB167C528BBEE9803827660BD7@EXSAN01.campus.ncl.ac.uk>,<20090901095010.GB10057@lunn.ch> In-Reply-To: <20090901095010.GB10057@lunn.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-smtpf-Report: sid=l80BeH073162723000; client=lan,relay,white,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=2:0; fails=0 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: RE: [ECOS] ARM7 ADC drivers - any progress? X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 >> I'm slightly confused by a couple of things, perhaps someone who is >> familiar with the AT91 hal code might be able to clearup. > The HAL can get its tick from two different sources. Some devices, ag > the AT91SAM, have a PIT, programmable Interrupt Timer. All AT91 have > TC, Timer Counter. There is a CDL option to control which is used. > Andrew Thanks for pointing this out Andrew, but as the Timer Counter is enabled by= default, I was trying to clear up which TC should be used for what (by AT9= 1 hal convention). There is a comment somewhere in the code stating that TC2 should be reserve= d for ADC/DAC use and Robert has used it with his ADC code, yet it appears = to be in use by the system timer when the PIT CDL option has not been expli= citly set. Is it fair to say that the PIT is conventionally used for the system timer = when available and hence it is OK to use TC2 as a default for an AT91(SAM) = ADC driver? If so then would it be reasonable to have a cdl entry for the ADC driver li= ke: requires CYGNUM_HAL_INTERRUPT_PITC Or is that constraint too restrictive for an AT91 platform wide ADC driver = as not all variants have a PIT? Steven -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss