Jup, Marc is working on this, he has already fixed it but the corner cases are tricky and needs a bit of attention before it is ready for release.
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:32 PM, David MacMahon <dav...@astro.berkeley.edu>wrote: > Hi, Alec, > > This is a serious bug. Even though the workaround seems to work (still > pending Glenn's testing), having to worry about when to use ?wordwrite vs > ?write is very unfriendly for users/programmers. It would be good to fix > it sooner rather than later, IMHO. > > Dave > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Alec Rust wrote: > > > Dave if the wordwrite workaround works lets stick to that for now. The > workaround Marc compiled is not really good for release. We'll work on a > proper release but for now use wordwrite if thats ok? > > > > Regards > > Alec > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:42 PM, David MacMahon < > dav...@astro.berkeley.edu> wrote: > > Hi, Marc, > > > > I can confirm that the wordwrite workaround works. Hopefully the fix > for byte enables (either to make tcpborphserver3 not use them or to make > the gateware support them) will not be too hard. > > > > Thanks, > > Dave > > > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 7:06 AM, Marc Welz wrote: > > > > > Hello > > > > > >> We have picked up on transient on the register write with the latest > memory > > >> mapped TCPBORPH. It seems that sometimes, some of the bits goes high > for a > > >> short while and then settles at the required register value. > > >> > > >> We need to figure out where the issue is (gateware or software).> > > > > > > So we think we have found the problem - ?write operations in > > > tcpborphserver3 rely on byte enables, which are not supported by the > > > gateware. I'll rewrite ?write to use multiples of 4... but in the mean > > > time you > > > could try using ?wordwrite, which operates on words, and so doesn't > use byte > > > enables. That workardound should be simpler than installing older > > > kernel/tcpborphserver combinations. > > > > > > regards > > > > > > marc > > > > > > > > > > >
