On 02/17/2014 11:43 AM, Andrew Johnson wrote:
Hi Jane,
On 02/14/2014 05:55 PM, Jane Richards wrote:
... However release 3.14.12 introduced a
"devLib
cleanup" which changed the API and broke our code. We now want to
update our code to a sustainable model.
How should we proceed?
This cleanup was my doing. The main goal was to fix some
inconsistencies in the API (not all functions used the jump table).
This allows the null implementation to actually link for targets other
than RTEMS/vxWorks.
It also makes it possible to compile in multiple implementations and
choose one at runtime. This was handy once when lack of hardware access
forced me to develop against a simulated device.
Hopefully the changes we made should not require too much in the way of
modifications to your implementation.
If you're only replicating the vxWorks API (and simply copying the
vxWorks version of devLibVMEOSD.c to src/libCom/osi/os/Linux/) then I'm
surprised you have problems. The usage of the vxWorks API hasn't changed.
I'm happy to help you work through these problems. It might be best to
take this process off the mailing list.
Michael
- References:
- Vme support in devLib for Linux Jane Richards
- Re: Vme support in devLib for Linux Andrew Johnson
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: Some CSS BOY questions Rod Nussbaumer
- Next:
RE: control knobs to a new control system Andreas Luedeke
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
<2014>
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: Vme support in devLib for Linux Andrew Johnson
- Next:
Re: Vme support in devLib for Linux Jane Richards
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
<2014>
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|