[En-Nut-Discussion] Should drivers yield explicit?
bon at elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de
Mon Jul 16 12:14:54 CEST 2012
>>>>> "Ole" == Ole Reinhardt <ole.reinhardt at embedded-it.de> writes:
Ole> Hi Uwe,
>> in my CANBUS driver for the STM32, the normal case is that the
>> message gets loaded to the fifo and the function return immediate. In
>> that case, there is no scheduling point and the calling thread keeps
>> control. Should a NutSleep(O) or NutThreadYield() get inserted in
>> that case?
Ole> I don't see any reason why? But you should implement the case where
Ole> the FIFO is full and your calling thread has to wait until there is
Ole> a free buffer available again.
Ole> Anyway I would vote to mark functions with possible scheduling
Ole> point in the documentation but don't have a good idea yet how this
Ole> could be done in an intelligent way...
The code yields while waitimg:
while ((rc = StmCanSendMsg(bus, frame)) == CAN_TXBUF_FULL)
Uwe Bonnes bon at elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de
Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------
More information about the En-Nut-Discussion