At 02:03 3-4-2009 -0700, you wrote: > >Hi Nico, > >Yep I would agree, its a mess, any plan no how to fix it?
IMHO the steps are: - compiler option for the CPU type. IIRC the differences between the current devices (in respect to the instruction set) are the HW multiplier and memory space. - Remove the startup code from the C library and create a dedicated startup.S for every device to keep things simple for starters. I guess this could be automated. - Have the user specify the proper ld file to the linker. >----- Original Message ---- >> From: N. Coesel <[email protected]> >> To: GCC for MSP430 - http://mspgcc.sf.net <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, 3 April, 2009 7:21:12 PM >> Subject: Re: [Mspgcc-users] changes of the memory mapping for family x5xx >> >> I've typed this before and I'll repeat it again: this issue again proves >> that the close integration between processor families and the MSPGCC >> toolchain is a >> bad idea. Most questions on this mailing list are about problems due to this >> close integration. IMHO the toolchain should have modes for architectural >> differences like >> other GCC flavors have. This forces developers to 'tailor' the >> toolchain to the controller they are using and eliminates questions about >> 'unsupported' controllers. Also, initialisation of microcontroller >> pheripherals >> shouldn't be done inside a C library at all. The low level initialisation >> should setup the stack, clear the RAM and jump to main. Have the developer >> choose what gets initialized and how. That's how its done on other >> architectures and probably for a good reason. >> >> Nico Coesel >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Roberto Padovani" >> To: "GCC for MSP430 - http://mspgcc.sf.net"; >> >> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 9:01 AM >> Subject: [Mspgcc-users] changes of the memory mapping for family x5xx >> >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > in the new x5xx family a lot of the memory mapping of the peripherals >> > has changed. >> > In particular, the watchdog is now defined as: >> > >> > #define __MSP430_WDT_A_BASE__ 0x150 // msp430x54xx.h >> > #define WDTCTL_ __MSP430_WDT_A_BASE__ + 0x0C /* Watchdog >> > timer control register */ // wdt_a.h >> > >> > In the libgcc.S file there is: >> > >> > #if defined(L__low_level_init) >> > /***************************************************************** >> > * Initialize peripherial, particularly disable watchdog >> > * can be overwriten >> > *****************************************************************/ >> > .section .init3, "ax", @progbits >> > >> > .global __low_level_init >> > .weak __low_level_init >> > >> > .func __low_level_init >> > >> > __low_level_init: >> > mov #0x5a80, &0x120 >> > >> > .endfunc >> > #endif >> > >> > where the watchdog address 0x120 is hardcoded. This is correct for >> > every MSP except for the newer x5xx family. >> > Is there anyone knowing the internals of the GCC who can fix or >> > suggest how to fix this ? >> > Parametrizing would be best, maybe with two different __low_level_init >> > functions that are linked against depending on the processor family. >> > >> > R# >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Mspgcc-users mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users >> > >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Mspgcc-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users > > > > Yahoo!7 recommends that you update your browser to the new Internet Explorer 8.Get it now. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >_______________________________________________ >Mspgcc-users mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users > >
