Re: Problem with system time in lpc176x bsp

Hello Marcos, yes, nested interrupts are a problem for the current implementation. Its a general problem of the RTEMS testsuite that we cannot test nested interrupts. I think we have to fix this at some time. Could you please test the attached patch? -- Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH

Re: index 657b2f4..e69de29 100644

On 23/12/15 01:17, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: +/* +@ingroup xilinx-zynq_i2c +@brief Disable cadence interrupts +*/ static void cadence_i2c_disable_interrupts(volatile cadence_i2c *regs) { regs->irqdisable = 0x; } Could we please not add trivial Doxygen comments like this. -- Sebast

Re: index 657b2f4..e69de29 100644

I screwed up and used an email address that wasn't allowed to send to the list. Zaphod mentioned it was a GCI Doxygen task. This doesn't look like a proper git patch. This link should help. https://devel.rtems.org/wiki/Developer/Git#GitAccessforUsers I am on my phone but it looks like too many l

Re: index 657b2f4..e69de29 100644

Please explain what the purpose of this change is. You may also want to read the RTEMS wiki instructions on submitting a patch. I think you just did a git diff and didn't use the format-patch feature On Dec 22, 2015 6:17 PM, "Zaphod Beeblebrox" wrote: > -#ifndef _BSPABORT_H > -#define _BSPABORT_H

index 657b2f4..e69de29 100644

-#ifndef _BSPABORT_H -#define _BSPABORT_H - -#include -#include -#include - -#define INSN_MASK 0xc5 - -#define INSN_STM1 0x80 -#define INSN_STM2 0x84 -#define INSN_STR 0x40 -#define INSN_STRB 0x44 - -#define INSN_LDM1 0x81 -#define INSN_LDM23

Re: Problem with system time in lpc176x bsp

Hi, thanks for answering, but spnsext01 test works ok. After a while I noticed the problem: The ticker interrupt has lower priority than any irq. When I entered the ticker: The bit PENDSTSET of the ICSR register that was used to check whether the sysclk had a pending interrupt or not went to 0, Bu

Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpukit/task{set,get}note.c: Remove obsolete Notepads

On 21/12/15 20:15, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Dec 21, 2015 1:07 PM, "Sebastian Huber" > wrote: > > Do we want to remove the task note functions so that an application gets compiler and linker errors or warnings? Or do we make the functions empty and