This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the eCos project.
Wrong asserts in mpc5xx var_intr.h?
- From: "Fritiofson, Andreas" <andreas dot fritiofson at newmad dot se>
- To: <ecos-discuss at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:23:42 +0100
- 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