Kinsey Moore started a new discussion on bsps/shared/dev/serial/zynq-uart-polled.c: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/199#note_112136 > + uint32_t desired_baud, > + uint32_t mode_clks, > + uint32_t *cd_ptr, > + uint32_t *bdiv_ptr > +) > +{ > + uint32_t best_error = UINT32_MAX; > + uint32_t best_cd; > + uint32_t best_bdiv_plus_one; > + uint32_t bdiv_plus_one; > + uint32_t selected_clock; > + > + _Assert((mode_clks & ~ZYNQ_UART_MODE_CLKS) == 0); > + selected_clock = zynq_uart_input_clock() / (1U << (3 * mode_clks)); > + > + for (bdiv_plus_one = 5; bdiv_plus_one <= 256; ++bdiv_plus_one) { The previous implementation only checked bdiv=4 to bdiv=254. The new implementation checks up to bdiv=255. Was that an intentional change? The commit that makes this change is very similar in logic, but it is completely reorganized so I've had to spend quite a bit of time unwinding the modifications to verify what parts of the logic have changed. -- View it on GitLab: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/199#note_112136 You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.rtems.org.
_______________________________________________ bugs mailing list bugs@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/bugs
