It seems like the easiest way to make everybody satisfied is to fix the
above issue, which is a) objectively broken, not "just" non compliant;
b) absolutely cannot possibly be that hard to fix. (Take the snap/pi
version of tcpborphserver, find the "actual" fpga read/write call within
the wordwr
Hello
Right - so even more conext will be helpful: tcpborphserver was written for the
ROACH1 board - which is about a decade old. It memory maps the
FPGA into the processor's address space - so accesses were
actually rather quick. tcpboprhserver has since been ported to
number of other platforms t
On Tue, 19 Jul 2022, 19:01 Kiran Shila, wrote:
> > ?wordread/?wordwrite was written with maximal human readability in
> > mind. Somebody who has a misbehaving roach deployed somewhere can just
> > telnet/netcat/socat/etc to port 7147 and issue a wordread
> > to see if enough bits are toggling, or
?wordread/?wordwrite was written with maximal human readability in
mind. Somebody who has a misbehaving roach deployed somewhere can just
telnet/netcat/socat/etc to port 7147 and issue a wordread
to see if enough bits are toggling, or if some counter is ticking
over, set a debug flag, etc.
I wou
Hello
Maybe it is helpful to give the reason for having two different
read/write mechanisms in tcpborphserver:
?wordread/?wordwrite was written with maximal human readability in
mind. Somebody who has a misbehaving roach deployed somewhere can just
telnet/netcat/socat/etc to port 7147 and issue a
On 7/15/22 08:16, Marc wrote:
So re-reading my first reply it becomes clear that this was much too
terse - sorry.
Here then the longer explanation:
At the lowest level katcp is a line-based protocol consisting out of lines
starting with either '#', '?', '!', followed by one or more words, each
6 matches
Mail list logo
