I had a bit of trouble understanding that last statement, but here's
what I found.
I had declared the IRQ as "naked". I was unaware that this also removes
the ret (or reti) instruction. I don't quite understand this, but I can
live with it.
So, now I have two questions:
1. How do tell the compiler to include the ret (or reti) instruction if
the function is void?
2. How do I tell the compiler to change the SR bit in the saved SR on
the stack so that the CPU turns back on after the BT irq service has
ended? I thought the "wakeup" keyword would do this, but I see no code
being generated when I add this. Is there a header that acts on the
"wakeup" keyword?
Sample:
interrupt (BASICTIMER_VECTOR) wakeup BasicTimerIRQ(void)
{
nop( );
1422: 03 43 nop
P1OUT=~P1OUT; //invert port 1
1424: f2 e3 21 00 xor.b #-1, &0x0021
}
1428: 00 13 reti
Thanks for the help.
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dmitry
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 7:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Mspgcc-users] Having trouble w/ BT IRQ
Did yo specify mcu arch?
Did you include appropreate header?
If you did not something, the system will behave as you get.
~d
On Friday 20 December 2002 19:02, Mark Stokes wrote:
> I'm trying to have the basic timer simply tell the CPU to turn back on
> every 250ms. I am pretty sure I have the BT stuff setup right, but
I'm
> not getting the asm I expect for the ISR itself. Here's the .lst from
> the BT IRQ:
>
> interrupt (BASICTIMER_VECTOR) wakeup BasicTimerIRQ(void)
> {
> nop( );
> 14a6: 03 43 nop
>
> 000014a8 <wait>:
> }
>
> Note, the 000014a8 <wait>: statement is signaling the start of the
next
> function (called "wait"). The only reason I have the noop in there is
> for clarity.
> Two things I don't see that I expect:
> 1. There is no IRET instruction at the end (much less a regular
"ret").
> 2. I read the docs to say that if I used the "wakeup" attribute, it
> would cause the compiler to set the CPU on. For IRQ's, this has to be
> done by clearing the CPUOFF bit in the "saved" Status register on the
> stack. This is also not being done.
> Any ideas?
> Thanks
> -Mark
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.NET email is sponsored by: The Best Geek Holiday Gifts!
> Time is running out! Thinkgeek.com has the coolest gifts for
> your favorite geek. Let your fingers do the typing. Visit Now.
> T H I N K G E E K . C O M http://www.thinkgeek.com/sf/
> _______________________________________________
> Mspgcc-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Order your Holiday Geek Presents Now!
Green Lasers, Hip Geek T-Shirts, Remote Control Tanks, Caffeinated Soap,
MP3 Players, XBox Games, Flying Saucers, WebCams, Smart Putty.
T H I N K G E E K . C O M http://www.thinkgeek.com/sf/
_______________________________________________
Mspgcc-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
