On 30/05/2022 08:29, gabriel.moy...@dlr.de wrote:
On 27.05.22 11:49,gabriel.moy...@dlr.de wrote:
On 27.05.22 10:51, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello Gabriel,
the uniprocessor version uses an optimization at the reader side:
#if defined(RTEMS_SMP)
} while (gen == 0 || gen != th->th_generation); #else
} while (gen != th->th_generation); #endif
This is possible since the windup happens with interrupts disabled.
I guess you need this optimization somewhere in the PPS/NTP code.
Yes, you are right that is for the PPS code.
The value of th_generation is saved in pps_capture() and I shouldn't add a
while waiting it to be different that 0 there.
If its value is 0, then the pps_event() returns early.
This is something that could happen in very particular circumstance (pps event
happens when the th_generation is 0).
In uniprocessor configurations, we don't need the 0 special value. It is only
required in SMP configurations since one processor may
observe a timecounter update which is in progress on another processor.
Being that case, the easiest solution will be to not check if pps->capgen == 0
in pps_event() for uniprocessors configurations.
/* If the timecounter was wound up underneath us, bail out. */
#if defined(RTEMS_SMP)
if (pps->capgen == 0 || pps->capgen !=
#else
if (pps->capgen !=
#endif
atomic_load_acq_int(&pps->capth->th_generation))
return;
what do you think?
Sounds good if it makes your test case passing.
--
embedded brains GmbH
Herr Sebastian HUBER
Dornierstr. 4
82178 Puchheim
Germany
email: sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 16
fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08
Registergericht: Amtsgericht München
Registernummer: HRB 157899
Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler
Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier:
https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
