On 05/09/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@Dmitry: What happens under CONFIG_XENO_OPT_SHIRQ_LEVEL &&!CONFIG_XENO_OPT_SHIRQ_EDGE when someone comes along withXN_ISR_SHARED|XN_ISR_EDGE? Looks like the level-triggered shared handlergets installed. Should we catch this? At Kconfig or at nucleu
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Hi Wolfgang,
>>
>> in the process of preparing to merge rtdm_irq_enable into
>> rtdm_irq_request I would like to check if the attached patch is ok, thus
>> we could finally drop rtdm_irq_enable once the API is refactored. Please
>> check carefully w
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
in the process of preparing to merge rtdm_irq_enable into
rtdm_irq_request I would like to check if the attached patch is ok, thus
we could finally drop rtdm_irq_enable once the API is refactored. Please
check carefully when the first IRQs may happen and what the h
HI Jan,
I am runnng the testsuite given by RTAI and Xenomai,
I need to this figures to compare on performance for
the doc to port XENOMAI on MIPS.
I see RTAI gives results in nanoseconds and XENOMAI in
microsecond, so i should say latency with Xenomai is
3000 micrsecond where as RTAI its 3000 Na
Hi Neelu,
please start a new thread when switching the topic, don't reply to
existing ones (CC'ing people who may not want this).
somshekar kadam wrote:
> HI Jan,
>
> I am runnng the testsuite given by RTAI and Xenomai,
>
> I need to this figures to compare on performance for
> the doc to port
somshekar kadam wrote:
> HI Jan,
>
> I am runnng the testsuite given by RTAI and Xenomai,
>
> I need to this figures to compare on performance for
> the doc to port XENOMAI on MIPS.
>
> I see RTAI gives results in nanoseconds and XENOMAI in
> microsecond, so i should say latency with Xe
Hi Wolfgang,
in the process of preparing to merge rtdm_irq_enable into
rtdm_irq_request I would like to check if the attached patch is ok, thus
we could finally drop rtdm_irq_enable once the API is refactored. Please
check carefully when the first IRQs may happen and what the handler
expects to be
somshekar kadam wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> To begin with porting I need some help you people,
> I dont see an announcement of Xenomai start, who are
> the Authors and maintainers of this I know were very
> well its you and Philipe Gerum and others also whom i
> dont know. As I need to put all this in
Miguel Angel Alvarez wrote:
> I am also very intrerested in this kind of porting guidance, because I
> have to evaluate the difficulties in porting Xenomai (and Adeos) into
> Coldfire v4 (m68k) architecture.
See this posting for the Adeos part:
https://mail.gna.org/public/adeos-main/2006-09/msg00
Hi Jan,
To begin with porting I need some help you people,
I dont see an announcement of Xenomai start, who are
the Authors and maintainers of this I know were very
well its you and Philipe Gerum and others also whom i
dont know. As I need to put all this in a document ,
can help me on this.
T
somshekar kadam wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> After a good study with help of mailing list, we fix
> on porting Xenomai to our ustom board running with
> Mips4k .
Nice to hear. :)
> what I understand is we have Adeos with Xenomai, and
> realtime capability of Xenomai.
Yep.
>
> our ultimate goal is r
somshekar kadam wrote:
Hi All,
After a good study with help of mailing list, we fix
on porting Xenomai to our ustom board running with
Mips4k .
what I understand is we have Adeos with Xenomai, and
realtime capability of Xenomai.
our ultimate goal is realtime. To Begin with port of
Xenomai I
12 matches
Mail list logo
