change log for rtems (2011-10-07)

[Peter Dufault]

(First responding to Ralf..)

>>  It wasn't me who wrote the original code.

I know, I did, but it was for the MPC55XX and it's being built for the MPC567X.  It's pulling in a different header file.

. . .

>>> 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 ;)

I know what you mean, but in device-specific code you need to somehow twiddle the device's bits and I almost always follow the conventions in use.  In this case it's bitfields in register structs.

>> 
>> 
>> Just to avoid further misunderstandings, could you send a patch for what
>> you think is correct?
>> 

We should back out your change and disable the build for anything that isn't an MPC56XX.  I'll try to do that Monday.

On Oct 7, 2011, at 10:42 , Joel Sherrill wrote:

> 
> Would issuing a compile time warning to indicate that this
> file is not yet supported on variant X be appropriate?

It did do that, though not on purpose.

> How would a user know this file needs attention to be useful
> for this particular configuration?
> 

Sebastian will have to pick this up since he has the chip.  The warnings in the "MPC5566 to MPC5674F Migration Guide" make it clear that something in the flash algorithm has changed, so he needs to look through the code and see if it applies.

Peter
-----------------
Peter Dufault
HD Associates, Inc.      Software and System Engineering