change log for rtems (2011-10-07)
Joel Sherrill
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com
Fri Oct 7 14:42:08 UTC 2011
On 10/07/2011 09:35 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/07/2011 03:51 PM, Peter Dufault wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 2011, at 5:11 , rtems-vc at rtems.org<mailto:rtems-vc at rtems.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> uint32_t R;
>>> struct {
>>> uint32_t:5;
>>> - uint32_t SIZE:3;
>>> - uint32_t:1;
>>> + uint32_t SIZE:4;
>>> uint32_t LAS:3;
>>> uint32_t:3;
>>> uint32_t MAS:1;
>>>
>> I think that's definitely wrong.
> It wasn't me who wrote the original code.
>
>> The MPC55xx structure starts out:
>>
>> struct FLASH_tag {
>> union { /* Module Configuration Register */
>> uint32_t R;
>> struct {
>> uint32_t:4;
>> uint32_t SIZE:4;
>> uint32_t:1;
>> uint32_t LAS:3;
>> uint32_t:3;
>> uint32_t MAS:1;
>>
>> so if it is compatible in any way then the reserved field of :5 needs be
>> cut down to :4 instead of shifting the size bit to the right.
> OK, if you say, so - The evilness of bitfield's sensitivity to
> endianness shows ;)
>
>
> Just to avoid further misunderstandings, could you send a patch for what
> you think is correct?
>
Would issuing a compile time warning to indicate that this
file is not yet supported on variant X be appropriate?
How would a user know this file needs attention to be useful
for this particular configuration?
>> As I said when I reopened the bug, I think it's best to disable this
>> file for the 567x and let someone with the chip reenable it when they
>> can test it, and when they fix it they should conditionalize the switch
>> statement to keep that warning intact for other systems.
> AFAICT, this would be Sebastian :-)
>
> Ralf
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-vc mailing list
> rtems-vc at rtems.org
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-vc
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research& Development
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985
More information about the vc
mailing list