This is the mail archive of the ecos-discuss@sourceware.org mailing list for the eCos project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]