From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <0272c012080310ebcd3b6576a3c4cf92@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] bitsy bootldr
From: Fco.J.Ballesteros <nemo@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:47:22 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 11ee81e6-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> I added the offset of the fields in the comment.
> Shouldn't there be a ``hole /* 0x0c */'' between trim and status?

Hmm. Not sure, but if there's a hole there, then that's the bug that
prevents me from sending RTC interrupts, ugh.

> I added a ``ulong hole;'' in between, set rtar to 0x05
> in clockinit() (next to setting of rttr and rcnr fields)
> and saw the debug print statement of clockintr many many times.


thanks a lot. I'm an idiot. We can probably wake up the bitsy while
suspended with your fix.


> 2) I'm trying to understand (a bit) mapspecial.
> is its parameter the register size in bytes?

Yes. Unless I'm very mistaken.

> Reason I'm asking is that I noticed that this parameter
> is hardcoded in many places (which seems potentially dangerous?)
> (see example below, isn't sizeof(MemConfRegs) > 32?)

The map is done in mmu.c by _map(). Probably it's being mapped
anyway. But I think that's just another bug you've found.

> Just wondering: is there a stylistic or other reason to use
> the numbers, instead of e.g. using sizeof?

I think it'd be better to use sizeof.

Now that you've found the stupid reason why I didn't get rtc interrupts
I'll try to build a new kernel soon and fix those things to see what
happens.

If you do it before I could, it'd be great to merge our versions.
I wouldn't like to end up with three different versions of the bitsy
kernel.

thanks a lot.