Hello,
> What I will side on you
> though, TS might have wanted to do a little more legwork on the RT side of
> things before declaring things "great and prosperous"[1].
What RT features would you like to see Technologic System back port to
2.6.21? Are there any bugs/problems you know of that would imply the
page you referenced is misleading or incorrect?[1]
As we all know Linux is under constant development, new features are
constantly being added. It would be great if Technologic Systems would
back port every new feature in Linux. But unfortunately the
managers/business people tell us it's not economical to do this.
Although the great thing about open source is you don't have to rely on
a vendor to solve all of your problems. You can back port these new
features yourself. You can then share them with the community and
everyone can benefit. It would be great if a vendor could be all things
to all people, but thats just not possible.
It's great that people like yourself are interested in getting the
TS-7800 mainline, I think it's a very noble effort. Please keep in mind
Technologic Systems is here to support you as well as all of its
customers if you/they have any problems or questions. Please let us know
if you find any bugs or strange behavior, we are more than happy to fix
them.
> Also if they fixed
> that damn trivial bug in TS-BOOTROM to pass the real platform ID would have
> been nice without the world having to resort to ugly hacks[2] :-/
What is the failure condition? Is the problem that Linux 2.6.x doesn't
like the way Technologic Systems code base handles machine IDs and
wouldn't except it mainline?
Please keep in mind one of our primary concerns as an industrial SBC
vendor is reliability. Technologic Systems doesn't typically make
changes to there design unless there is a good reason to do so.
>> Lastly, has anyone else's TS-7800 been running (use the ts-7800ctl
>> odometer) for under -16,000,000 hours?
>>
> Yeah, that was my first hint that ts7800ctl had some 'fruity' logic in it
> and might have not been as well tested as one hoped :)
If you find a bug please let us know. We would like to be notified about
any such bugs so we can fix them.
As I mentioned earlier the 24 bit unsigned odometer value was being
treated as a signed 32 bit value. Here is a simple two line patch to fix
the problem.
:samples$ diff -u ts7800ctl.c.orig ts7800ctl.c
--- ts7800ctl.c.orig 2008-06-24 14:22:10.966026395 -0700
+++ ts7800ctl.c 2008-06-24 14:23:00.455933911 -0700
@@ -370,8 +370,8 @@
*control = STOP|TWSIEN; //Send stop signal
if(verbose) fprintf(stderr,"SENT Stop signal\n");
- odom = 0xFFFFFFFF - odom;
- printf("TS-7800 has been running for %d hours\n", odom);
+ odom = 0xFFFFFF - (odom & 0xFFFFFF);
+ printf("TS-7800 has been running for %u hours\n", odom);
}
[1] http://www.embeddedarm.com/about/resource.php?item=343
--
Best Regards,
________________________________________________________________
Eddie Dawydiuk, Technologic Systems | voice: (480) 837-5200
16610 East Laser Drive Suite 10 | fax: (480) 837-5300
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 | web: www.embeddedARM.com
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ts-7000/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ts-7000/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|