On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 11:18:03AM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> I think much better way to do this is:
>
> cdl_option CYGNUM_KERNEL_INTR_TEST_PRIO_A {
> display "interrupt priority used by intr0/kintr0 test"
> flavor data
> default_value 0
> legal_values 0 to 16
> description "The intr0 and kintr0 tests create several
> interrupts.
> This option selects the interrupt priority to
> be used
> for these interrupts."
> }
>
> cdl_option CYGNUM_KERNEL_INTR_TEST_PRIO_B {
> display "interrupt priority used by intr0/kintr0 test"
> flavor data
> default_value 1
> legal_values 0 to 16
> description "The intr0 and kintr0 tests create several
> interrupts.
> This option selects the interrupt priority to
> be used
> for these interrupts."
> }
>
> and then in the LPC2XXX hal statements like
>
> requires { is_active(CYGNUM_KERNEL_INTR_TEST_PRIO_A)
> implies { CYGNUM_KERNEL_INTR_TEST_PRIO_A == 16 } }
>
> requires { is_active(CYGNUM_KERNEL_INTR_TEST_PRIO_B)
> implies { CYGNUM_KERNEL_INTR_TEST_PRIO_B == 16 } }
>
> It makes the test more flexible. You can how for example use vectors 5
> and 15 which was not possible before.
Looks good, but I'm unsure about PRIO_A and PRIO_B vs. PRIO_0 and
PRIO_1. I used PRIO_0 where the test used a hardcoded 0, and PRIO_1
where test used a hardcoded 1 (twice). How will PRIO_A and PRIO_B map to
this?
--
%SYSTEM-F-ANARCHISM, The operating system has been overthrown
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
