Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] [PATCH] Adeos support for IXP4xx

2007-04-18 Thread Richard Cochran
-Original Message- From: Gilles Chanteperdrix *IXP4XX_OSRT1 = LATCH | ONE_SHOT_ENABLE; In fact, should not this be: *IXP4XX_OSRT1 = (last_jiffy_time + LATCH - *IXP4XX_OSTS) | ONE_SHOT_ENABLE; Nope, we are using GP Timer 1. It counts

Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] [PATCH] Adeos support for IXP4xx

2007-04-18 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Richard Cochran wrote: -Original Message- From: Gilles Chanteperdrix *IXP4XX_OSRT1 = LATCH | ONE_SHOT_ENABLE; In fact, should not this be: *IXP4XX_OSRT1 = (last_jiffy_time + LATCH - *IXP4XX_OSTS) | ONE_SHOT_ENABLE;

Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] [PATCH] Adeos support for IXP4xx

2007-04-18 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Richard Cochran wrote: -Original Message- From: Gilles Chanteperdrix For reasons explained on the wiki, I would rather see ixp4xx_timer_interrupt implemented as: if (__ipipe_mach_timerstolen) { /* If some other domain has taken over the timer, then

[Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Adeos support for IXP4xx - CORRECTED

2007-04-18 Thread Richard Cochran
Here is the corrected patch, based on Gilles' comments. I hope sending this as an attachment is ok. I am a former Mutt user, now forced to use **tl**k, and I can never tell when this program wraps the lines... Richard Richard

Re: [Xenomai-core] Ipipe and Siemens AD Realtime

2007-04-18 Thread Jan Kiszka
Krause, Karl-Heinz wrote: Hi Philippe as promised some time ago, I'd like to let you know the result of our work. Attached are - a few recycled slides from a presentation describing motivation, features and results - the patch file for a

[Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

2007-04-18 Thread Jan Kiszka
Hi Philippe, here is an explanation of the scalable scheduler issue I face on x86_64 under different gcc compilers: unsigned long x = 0; int n = 32; x |= 1 n; The last instruction translates to: mov0xfffc(%rbp),%ecx mov$0x1,%eax

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Adeos support for IXP4xx - CORRECTED

2007-04-18 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Richard Cochran wrote: Here is the corrected patch, based on Gilles' comments. I hope sending this as an attachment is ok. I am a former Mutt user, now forced to use **tl**k, and I can never tell when this program wraps the lines... This patch is Ok for me. Philippe, could you merge it

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

2007-04-18 Thread Philippe Gerum
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 20:13 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: Hi Philippe, here is an explanation of the scalable scheduler issue I face on x86_64 under different gcc compilers: unsigned long x = 0; int n = 32; x |= 1 n; The last instruction translates to:

Re: [Xenomai-core] [Adeos-main] [PATCH] Adeos support for IXP4xx - CORRECTED

2007-04-18 Thread Philippe Gerum
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 21:59 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Richard Cochran wrote: Here is the corrected patch, based on Gilles' comments. I hope sending this as an attachment is ok. I am a former Mutt user, now forced to use **tl**k, and I can never tell when this program

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

2007-04-18 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Philippe Gerum wrote: - the posix registry Is it enough to replace 1 (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) with 1L (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) ? -- Gilles Chanteperdrix. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

2007-04-18 Thread Jan Kiszka
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: - the posix registry Is it enough to replace 1 (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) with 1L (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) ? Yes, of course! Jan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

2007-04-18 Thread Jan Kiszka
Philippe Gerum wrote: On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 20:13 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: Hi Philippe, here is an explanation of the scalable scheduler issue I face on x86_64 under different gcc compilers: unsigned long x = 0; int n = 32; x |= 1 n; The last instruction

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

2007-04-18 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Jan Kiszka wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: - the posix registry Is it enough to replace 1 (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) with 1L (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) ? Yes, of course! But ffs on x86_64 takes an int as argument, not a long. So, my best option is to

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

2007-04-18 Thread Jan Kiszka
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: - the posix registry Is it enough to replace 1 (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) with 1L (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) ? Yes, of course! But ffs on x86_64 takes an int as

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Support EABI enabled kernels on ARM

2007-04-18 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Stelian Pop wrote: Hi, The attached patch adds an option to make Xenomai userspace issue EABI syscalls. This is needed to make Xenomai work with kernels compiled with CONFIG_EABI. Note that due to a change in syscall handling when the EABI layer was added in the kernel, this