On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Pavel Pisa <p...@cmp.felk.cvut.cz> wrote: > the code has been tested for internal RAM now. > We have more cleanups in the mind but headers are critical > for now. Premek is working on that, time for feedback > form previous e-mail passed without input so he plans > to send prepared changes as patch intended for inclusion/final > review today.
I'll admit that was my fault, at least partially. I didn't have time to test the new headers, mostly because I'd have to change all of our (and HALCoGen's) init code to actually use them. In any case, are these tested by loading RTEMS from both internal RAM and flash? I'd still like to have a say on the naming when the patch is sent, if it's not too late. > As for time resolution, we have made initial assumption > that 1usec is reasonable and has advantage, that it can be > maintained constant even if there are different PLL setups > between boards. Other option is to set resolution exactly > to PLL clock but at least I do not see big added value in that. I don't think we should make this kind of assumptions when both the manual and TI's tools say otherwise, for a number of reasons: 1) We're not 100% sure it'll work the same in all configurations. 2) Any future maintainers will suspect something's wrong when they compare this to the HALCoGen code. 3) Any future bugs will have us coming back to this patch to check if it's not causing them. 4) It's not really necessary to make this change, nor it's too big of a deal to use the HALCoGen formula. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
