This thread has been locked.
If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.
Hello , all
I have a question about DSP/BIOS and simulator. ( R&D enviroment is CCS 3.3 + CCS_v3.3_SR11_81.6.2.exe + DSP/BIOS 5.41 + cgtools 6.1.13 )
I use DSP/BIOS sample ( in C:\CCStudio_v3.3\bios_5_41_03_17\packages\ti\bios\examples\basic\clk\evmDM6446 ) , and setup a 64x+ CPU Cycle Accurate Simulator , then change the RTDX to simulator mode. After compiling and load .out file , I run the program . However program stop at TSK_sleep(...) , the debug window show the instruction ( RTDX$$MSG: ) . When I continue , the code after TSK_sleep(...) are never executed. But when I setup DM6446 Cycle Accurate Simulator, the result is OK . Can any one tell me why this case happened?
I create a none-BIOS project and test the timer0(0x01C21400) and timer1(0x01C21800) under CPU Cycle Accurate Simulator , the timers run correctly .
What is the "..." that you provide to TSK_sleep? If it is a big number, it may just be taking a long time to reach that timeout value on the simulator.
If you comment out that line, does everything work okay? Or if you try a smaller number for the TSK_sleep argument?
Yes, DSP/BIOS works with the simulator, as long as any peripherals you use through DSP/BIOS are implemented. Since you verified the timers, there is probably nothing else inherent in DSP/BIOS that would prevent proper operation.
RandyP,
... means some number I tried. Usually I use TSK_sleep((LgUns)1 to replace TSK_sleep((LgUns)timeout) in clk.c
After running ,the program always stop at "RTDX$$MSG" , (see the followed picture)
and press F5 to continue , But nothing executed after TSK_sleep();(see the LOG window in the followed picture )
========================================
0 clk example started.
1 The time in task is: 0 ticks
2 task going to sleep for 10 ticks...
Hi arthur,
some of the CPU simulators have an issue with TSK_sleep indeed (being investigated), you can try using another one for the C64+ core and check the results.