Subject:
|
Ideas for 0.2.5 (was: Re: Possible bug with bss allocation)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Jul 2000 00:44:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2179 times
|
| |
|
|
> > > If noone objects, I would implement this. The Makefile changes are • trivial,
> > > only major change is to makelx, which would read coff files. I have done
> > > these things before, so this would not be too hard.
> >
> > In my opinion this is a great idea! :-) Please do the implementation!
> >
> > It also could be very usefull to have some docs / makefile options to make
> > srecs too.
Shure, no problem.
> Paolo and others:
> Eddie and I have talked about this, and we both agree that this is a big
> change- so I think we are aiming for this for 0.2.5. Since it has already
> been seven months since 0.2.3, I think we'll aim for getting 0.2.4 out the
> door as soon as we can, and then we all have some really good ideas for
> 0.2.5- Eddie's work would be the first step.
While we are at it, I have two other major changes in mind:
- Implement timers. A timer would install a callback function with a
private to the caller void * argument. This callback function is called
at the timers expiration time. This would significantly cleanup systime.c
as all modules could install their own timers. No more hooks inside
the timer interrupt with all the #ifdef CONF_XXX around them.
User programs could use timers. This would help a lot I believe.
- Implement event queues. Anyone waiting for an event can add a callback
to the event in question (this will put the thread to sleep).
Events are triggered by timers or by the sensor interrupt for example.
Triggering an event would wake up all threads sleeping on the event queue.
Currently events are implemented by constantly polling the required
value from the scheduler during each time tick. How wasteful!
I believe this could reduce power consumption by another 1 or 2 mA
(see my mail about sensor reading for more reduction).
Both changes can be made with very little code added, and will definitely
result to reduced code at other places, so overall code size should not
be a great problem here.
Eddie C. Dost
ecd@skynet.be
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Possible bug with bss allocation
|
| (...) Paolo and others: Eddie and I have talked about this, and we both agree that this is a big change- so I think we are aiming for this for 0.2.5. Since it has already been seven months since 0.2.3, I think we'll aim for getting 0.2.4 out the (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
