"Florian G. Pflug" wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 01:28:00PM -0500, Tom Walsh wrote:
> > "D. Peter Siddons" wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > > I was able to install the RTL patches on my uCsimm, and was
> > > able to execute the 'parallel' example succesfully. I then tried
> > > to run the 'frank' example, and failed. The userland application
> > > reported that the device /dev/rtf0 did not exist. I created the
> > > device nodes in /dev for rtf0 thro 7 to see if that helped, but
> > > the result is the same. Anybody succesfully run 'frank' on a
> > > uCsimm?
> > I don't have that sources, my platform is my own design. I did try out
> > the RTL patches and found that they are not stable. The uClinux has a
> > tendancy to silently crash (lockup), it was suggested to me that the
> > fifo operations within the RTL does not buffer more than one character.
> > I did experience the crashing due to the patches, fortunately the
> > customer I was demo-ing the unit for did not notice it.
> > Not saying that the RTL is unfixable, just that they are not "golden".
> > I have moved towards using the RTAI style of approach, running uClinux
> > as a low-priority task to an interrupt driven hardware control layer.
> > It is not RTAI compatible, but it works for me.
> What I noticed when using the RT-Patches is that the major number of the
> fifo device used in the source is another one than it should be according to
> the documentation.
> I don't remeber the correct major and minor numbers, but this is quite easy
> to figure out by checking the source.
The correct number for rtfifos should be major 150. In the earlier code
it was 63 (which is probably what it is in the uClinux codebase).
This message resent by the firstname.lastname@example.org list server http://www.uClinux.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Apr 07 2002 - 00:01:39 EST