_t _CPU_SMP_Get_current_processor( void );
diff --git a/cpukit/score/cpu/no_cpu/rtems/score/cpu.h
b/cpukit/score/cpu/no_cpu/rtems/score/cpu.h
index c864164..5241b5b 100644
--- a/cpukit/score/cpu/no_cpu/rtems/score/cpu.h
+++ b/cpukit/score/cpu/no_cpu/rtems/score/cpu.h
@@ -1467,19 +1467,47 @@
On 2014-03-07 03:25, Chris Johns wrote:
On 6/03/2014 9:04 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello,
there is a potential problem in the SMP initialization procedure.
One processor in the system has a special role, the so called boot
processor. Currently this is the processor with index zero. The way
On 6/03/2014 9:04 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello,
there is a potential problem in the SMP initialization procedure.
One processor in the system has a special role, the so called boot
processor. Currently this is the processor with index zero. The way to
select the boot processor may change
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:04 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> there is a potential problem in the SMP initialization procedure.
>
> One processor in the system has a special role, the so called boot
> processor. Currently this is the processor with index zero. The way to
Hello,
there is a potential problem in the SMP initialization procedure.
One processor in the system has a special role, the so called boot processor.
Currently this is the processor with index zero. The way to select the boot
processor may change in the future, but what will not change is
and
without it I am
limited to commenting in patches about general design issues.
The SMP initialization existed before my involvement in this area. It
is not my work and I only fix basic problems here.
I know this is the case and I am also not asking you to fix the problem.
I am attempting to id
atches about general design issues.
The SMP initialization existed before my involvement in this area. It is not
my work and I only fix basic problems here.
I put a great deal of information into the wiki page
http://www.rtems.org/wiki/index.php?title=SMP
I also sent several e-mails to the list i
makes the boot
monitor simpler.
Given I currently only use the ARM which is easy and I will not ship
uboot due
to licensing reason I favour adding support to RTEMS. :)
The boot processor calls boot_card() and all other processors do what
they want, but they must wait until the boot process
ort to RTEMS what we want to have and worth it verses adding this code
gives us complete control over initialisation and makes the boot monitor
simpler.
Given I currently only use the ARM which is easy and I will not ship uboot due
to licensing reason I favour adding support to RTEMS. :)
The b
On 2014-02-25 00:13, Chris Johns wrote:
On 25/02/2014 10:02 am, Chris Johns wrote:
Does a LEON3 define START_LEON3_ENABLE_SMP ?
I mean LEON4, that is "Does a LEON4 define START_LEON3_ENABLE_SMP ?".
There is no specific LEON4 BSP, so LEON3 and LEON4 are currently equal in RTEMS.
--
Sebastian
On 25/02/2014 10:02 am, Chris Johns wrote:
Does a LEON3 define START_LEON3_ENABLE_SMP ?
I mean LEON4, that is "Does a LEON4 define START_LEON3_ENABLE_SMP ?".
Chris
___
rtems-devel mailing list
rtems-devel@rtems.org
http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listin
s the boot monitor simpler.
Given I currently only use the ARM which is easy and I will not ship
uboot due to licensing reason I favour adding support to RTEMS. :)
The boot processor calls boot_card() and all other processors do what
they want, but they must wait until the boot processor give
ates start
with PER_CPU_STATE_INITIAL.
The boot processor calls boot_card() and all other processors do what they
want, but they must wait until the boot processor gives the go (explained later).
The boot processor calls eventually:
/**
* @brief Performs CPU specific SMP initialization in
On 2014-02-20 18:36, Gedare Bloom wrote:
What RTEMS configure and BSPs do you test this on?
My configure options are
--enable-posix --enable-smp --enable-tests --enable-cxx --enable-networking
I test on SPARC LEON4 (NGMP is a four processor board), on PowerPC P1020RDB
(two processor board) a
On 21/02/2014 3:31 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello Chris,
On 2014-02-20 03:50, Chris Johns wrote:
On 20/02/2014 12:42 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
+/**
+ * @brief State of a processor.
+ *
+ * @dot
+ * digraph states {
+ * bi [label="PER_CPU_STATE_BEFORE_INITIALIZATION"];
+ * rsm [label="PE
What RTEMS configure and BSPs do you test this on?
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> Rename _SMP_Request_other_cores_to_perform_first_context_switch() into
> _SMP_Request_start_multitasking() since this requests now a multitasking
> start on all configured and available p
Rename _SMP_Request_other_cores_to_perform_first_context_switch() into
_SMP_Request_start_multitasking() since this requests now a multitasking
start on all configured and available processors. The name corresponds
_Thread_Start_multitasking() and
_SMP_Start_multitasking_on_secondary_processor() a
On 20/02/2014 12:42 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
+/**
+ * @brief State of a processor.
+ *
+ * @dot
+ * digraph states {
+ * bi [label="PER_CPU_STATE_BEFORE_INITIALIZATION"];
+ * rsm [label="PER_CPU_STATE_READY_TO_START_MULTITASKING"];
+ * sm [label="PER_CPU_STATE_START_MULTITASKING"];
+ *
On 2014-02-19 16:11, Gedare Bloom wrote:
There is dissimilarity between the SMP handler function names
* _SMP_Request_processors_to_shutdown
* _SMP_Request_start_multitasking_on_secondary_processors()
Note the order switch between the verb and object. If you like the
similar with _Thread_Start_m
Ok
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> On 2014-02-19 16:11, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>
>> There is dissimilarity between the SMP handler function names
>> * _SMP_Request_processors_to_shutdown
>> * _SMP_Request_start_multitasking_on_secondary_processors()
>>
>> Note the order s
Hi,
There is dissimilarity between the SMP handler function names
* _SMP_Request_processors_to_shutdown
* _SMP_Request_start_multitasking_on_secondary_processors()
Note the order switch between the verb and object. If you like the
similar with _Thread_Start_multitasking, I recommend using
_SMP_Req
Rename _SMP_Request_other_cores_to_perform_first_context_switch() into
_SMP_Request_start_multitasking_on_secondary_processors() to match the
corresponding _SMP_Start_multitasking_on_secondary_processor() action of
secondary processors. Highlights also similarity to
_Thread_Start_multitasking().
Delete bsp_smp_wait_for(). Other parts of the system work without
timeout, e.g. the spinlocks. Using a timeout here does not make the
system more robust.
Delete bsp_smp_cpu_state and replace it with Per_CPU_State. The
Per_CPU_State follows the Score naming conventions. Add
_Per_CPU_Change_stat
23 matches
Mail list logo
