This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: Serial VS Diagnostic interface
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Nick Garnett <email@example.com> wrote:
> "damien millescamps" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Chris Zimman <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >> Actually as it just inline code. I have already checked it is
>> >> correctly included. Maybe I should have been more explicit: Is there
>> >> anything to ensure the HW serial driver is correctly initialized ?
>> >> Where should pc_serial_lookup() be called in a normal behavior ?
>> > If you can build the serial tests and they pass, you should be in good shape.
>> > Alternatively, if opening "/dev/ser0" succeeds, you're good to go.
>> opening /dev/ser0 results in an error. Now that I know it should
>> normally work, I can start to instrument a little bit to find out why
>> it doesn't work for me.
> The most common problem with serial devices is not enabling
> CYGPKG_IO_SERIAL_DEVICES. Obviously you also have to include the
> CYGPKG_IO_SERIAL package too.
> Note that AT91 serial devices cannot be shared between diagnostics and
> serial drivers. So if you want to continue using diagnostics on a
> particular UART, you need to disable it for the drivers.
I imagine you mean CYGPKG_IO_SERIAL_<platform> instead of
CYGPKG_IO_SERIAL_DEVICES which doesn't exist ?
When you say it is not possible to use the Diagnostic interface and
the serial drivers, is it just because of the ISR declaration ? If
this is the case, I already know how to handle it, or are you talking
about another issue ?
> Nick Garnett eCos Kernel Architect
> eCosCentric Limited http://www.eCosCentric.com The eCos experts
> Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 1223 245571
> Registered in England and Wales: Reg No: 4422071