Re: [ECOS] Wrong asserts in mpc5xx var_intr.h?

[bob dot koninckx at o-3s dot com]

Hi Andreas,

I wrote this code a long time ago, so I can't say for sure without doing some tests. At first sight, It seems you are right and the Asserts should be the other way around.

I ordered the vectors in such way that all VECTORS < CYGNUM_HAL_INTERRUPT_IMB3_QUADCA_CI1 are from devices that are connected directly to the SIU controller, so they can only have priorities from 0-7. All others >= CYGNUM_HAL_INTERRUPT_IMB3_QUADCA_CI1 come from sources that are connected to the IMB3 controller, so there priorities from 0-31 are valid.

Could you try and see if it solves you problem ?

Bob


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Fritiofson, Andreas [mailto:andreas.fritiofson@newmad.se]
>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 09:23 AM
>To: ecos-discuss@sourceware.org
>Subject: [ECOS] Wrong asserts in mpc5xx var_intr.h?
>
>Hi all!
>
>I have made a variant HAL based on mpc5xx and I noticed I always get failed asserts when i build with them enabled. Without asserts enabled it seems to work fine. Upon examination of the code I wonder if the following asserts shouldn't be the other way around?
>
>--- hal/powerpc/mpc5xx/current/include/var_intr.h:2335
>    if(vector < CYGNUM_HAL_INTERRUPT_IMB3_QUADCA_CI1)
>    {
>        // Note: highest priority has the lowest numerical value.
>        CYG_ASSERT( level >= CYGARC_SIU_PRIORITY_HIGH, "Invalid priority");
>        CYG_ASSERT( level <= CYGARC_SIU_PRIORITY_LOW, "Invalid priority");
>    }
>    else
>    {
>        CYG_ASSERT( level >= CYGARC_IMB3_PRIORITY_HIGH, "Invalid priority");
>        CYG_ASSERT( level <= CYGARC_IMB3_PRIORITY_LOW, "Invalid priority");
>    }
>---
>
>Given the following defines...
>
>--- hal/powerpc/mpc5xx/current/include/var_intr.h:298
>#define CYGARC_SIU_PRIORITY_HIGH   7 // Maximum interrupt priority on SIU
>#define CYGARC_SIU_PRIORITY_LOW    0 // Minimum interrupt prioeirt on SIU
>#define CYGARC_IMB3_PRIORITY_HIGH 31 // Maximum interrupt priority on IMB3
>#define CYGARC_IMB3_PRIORITY_LOW   0 // Minimum interrupt priority on IMB3
>---
>
>Or is it the defines that should be the other way around, considering the "Note:" above?
>
>-
>Andreas Fritiofson
>Newmad Technologies AB
>
>
>--
>Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
>and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
>
>



--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss