Hmmm, yes, there were some changes to interface semantics for some fairly important interfaces (like Receive!) between 2.0.2 and the CVS head. While the changes are somewhat minimal (i.e. you have to add a particular parameter to some interfaces, and change the value you pass to others), code written for 2.0.2 will not compile immediately after updating to cvs. If you don't want to go through this process (which you might eventually anyway if you ever plan on upgrading to newer version of TinyOS in the future), then just checking out a new tos/chips/msp430/adc12 directory might be your best bet.
Kevin On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Eric Keller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I update to the CVS version from TinyOS-2.0.2, does that affect my > toolset and code? > Should I just check out the ADC12 directory? > Eric > > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 6:07 AM, Jan Hauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I reproduced Sandip's problem and tracked it down to a bug in the ADC > > HAL (the overflow interrupt was not handled properly). This is now > > fixed in CVS as well as the bug reported some time ago about the > > ReadStream not working with a "usPeriod" parameter > 0xFFFF. > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Jan Hauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > You should make sure that you don't call Resource.request() while > > > > > you're still owner. You could do it by keeping state in some > module > > > > > variable, but you could also do it through "if (!call > > > > > Resource.isOwner()) call Resource.request();" in your > Timer.fired(). > > > > > Note that this means, that your samples might not be taken at > regular > > > > > intervals (you lose a sample when isOwner() returns FALSE) > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not right. It should be valid to request while owner: this > > > > enqueues a request, which will be serviced (after possibly others) > > > > once release() is called. TEP 108 is very clear on this. > > > > > > Of course you can request while you're already owner and the first > > > time you do it, it will succeed (will queue the request). I was trying > > > to find a quick solution for the given problem, not giving a general > > > rule, maybe that was not clear. > > > There is a known potential race condition if you call release after > > > you've requested but before you've gotten the granted() event (see > > > @note in Resource.nc). Looking at the code snippet this should not > > > happen, but then the snippet is not the real code > > > (MultiChannel.dataReady is async) - Sandip, can you please post the > > > exact code you're running? > > > > > > Jan > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tinyos-help mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help > > > _______________________________________________ > Tinyos-help mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help > -- ~Kevin _______________________________________________ Tinyos-help mailing list [email protected] https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
