Hey all,
I want to allocate memory within an application code, set
memory access attributes on it, and check whether these
permissions are set correctly or not.
I tried to use _Workspace_Allocate(), malloc(), and partition and region
managers to allocate a region of memory, but just after I set t
Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 2013-08-27 01:26, Chris Johns wrote:
Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 2013-08-24 04:10, Chris Johns wrote:
Thus the normal extract operation is not available on SMP. An extract
variant which needs also the chain control as a parameter must be
used.
I think a node may need
For 0003-libmm-libcpu-arm-shared.patch, you should not specify the
exception handler is inline, since you register a pointer for it. At
any rate can you use the ARM's default exception handler (Sebastian
pointed it out in another email). Also, you should probably get rid of
the arm_cp15_print_fsr.c
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> For the ARM exception handling see:
>
> http://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/cpukit/score/cpu/arm/armv4-exception-default.S
>
> They end up in:
>
> void _ARM_Exception_default( CPU_Exception_frame *frame )
> {
> rtems_fatal( RTEMS_FATAL_SOUR
On 2013-08-27 01:26, Chris Johns wrote:
Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 2013-08-24 04:10, Chris Johns wrote:
Thus the normal extract operation is not available on SMP. An extract
variant which needs also the chain control as a parameter must be used.
I think a node may need a back pointer to the ch
On 2013-08-26 20:24, Hesham Moustafa wrote:
>> #define RTEMS_MM_REGION_BIT_READ 0
>> #define RTEMS_MM_REGION_BIT_WRITE 1
>> #define RTEMS_MM_REGION_BIT_EXECUTE 2
>> #define RTEMS_MM_REGION_BIT_CACHE 3
>> #define RTEMS_MM_REGION_BIT_DEVICE 4
>> #define RTEMS_MM_REGION
On 2013-08-26 20:28, Hesham Moustafa wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Sebastian Huber
mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
On 2013-08-26 02:14, Hesham AL-Matary wrote:
+/**
+ * @brief dummy exception handler for data aborts to help in debugging
On 2013-08-27 06:24, Chris Johns wrote:
Hi,
This patch removes the wait of the primary cpu for the secondary cpus during
initialisation. If there is a problem with a bootloader where the secondary
cpus do not run RTEMS should at least operate in a degraded state rather than
not at all.
The mai
On 2013-08-27 06:27, Chris Johns wrote:
@@ -42,6 +41,12 @@ void rtems_smp_secondary_cpu_initialize( void )
_Per_CPU_Wait_for_state( self_cpu, PER_CPU_STATE_BEGIN_MULTITASKING );
_Thread_Start_multitasking( NULL );
+
+ _Per_CPU_Change_state( self_cpu, PER_CPU_STATE_SHUTDOWN );
+
+ while
Joel Sherrill wrote:
Since I have not looked at the code...
How does the scheduler know to ignore these cores?
The CPU state does not enter UP. I assume this means the core is not
available for scheduling. I have not checked the code to make sure this
happens.
Does the set of cores with
10 matches
Mail list logo