Re: [ECOS] AT91SAM7S RTC speed

["Igor B. Poretsky" <poretsky at mlbox dot ru>]

Hello!

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> writes:

    Andrew> Please can you use the standard eCos test,
    Andrew> clocktruth.

Ok, I'll certainly try it tomorrow when come to my workplace. Though,
I think, the steps presented in my previous message to reproduce the
situation are quite straightforward and give non-ambiguous result too.

    Andrew> Also, are you using the PIT or a TC for the clock? What is
    Andrew> the value of CYGBLD_HAL_ARM_AT91_TIMER_TC and
    Andrew> CYGBLD_HAL_ARM_AT91_TIMER_PIT.

As I've shown in my previous message, the default system configuration
was used:

    cdl_option CYGBLD_HAL_ARM_AT91_TIMER_TC {
        display       "Use Timer Counter for eCos Clock"
        flavor        bool
        default_value 1
        requires      !CYGBLD_HAL_ARM_AT91_TIMER_PIT
        compile       timer_tc.c
        description   "
            Use a Timer Counter Channel to generate the eCos Clock."
    }

    cdl_option CYGBLD_HAL_ARM_AT91_TIMER_PIT {
        display       "Use Periodic Interval Timer for eCos Clock"
        flavor        bool
        default_value !CYGBLD_HAL_ARM_AT91_TIMER_TC
        requires      !CYGBLD_HAL_ARM_AT91_TIMER_TC
        active_if     CYGINT_HAL_ARM_AT91_PIT_HW
        compile       timer_pit.c
        description   "
            Use Periodic Interval Timer to generate the eCos Clock."
    }

According to hal/arm/at91/var/current/cdl/hal_arm_at91.cdl.

I did not try another combination of these parameters. Should i?

Best regards,
Igor.

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss