- 13 Feb, 2018 4 commits
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
The debugfs is the right place for such output Signed-off-by:Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@cern.ch>
-
Federico Vaga authored
It is good practice to reset thing Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by:
-
- 09 Feb, 2018 1 commit
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
The user-space may not have a definition for `BIT()`, so when an application includes this header it will get error about missing `BIT` definition. This is a fix for this possible of issue. Signed-off-by:
-
- 29 Jan, 2018 3 commits
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
Never used and in v5 it will disappear from the gateware as well Signed-off-by:
-
- 21 Dec, 2017 1 commit
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by:
-
- 29 Nov, 2017 1 commit
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by:
-
- 28 Nov, 2017 3 commits
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
The patch was wrong. Actyally the message says the opposite! This reverts commit 101891a7.
-
- 07 Apr, 2017 3 commits
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by:
-
- 22 Feb, 2017 1 commit
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by:
-
- 21 Feb, 2017 2 commits
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
keep the typo as define to avoid compatibility issues. Remove it later when we are sure Signed-off-by:
-
- 07 Dec, 2016 3 commits
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by:
-
- 21 Sep, 2016 2 commits
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by:
-
- 17 Jul, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by:Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@gmail.com>
-
- 13 Jul, 2016 3 commits
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
this will fix g++ warnings and will not affect the gcc and C logic even if `(void *)` is perfectly legal in C Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
This is a C library that it can be used by C++ programs as well. So the library header will be included in some C++ program and g++ will rise warnings like this: ------ fmcadc-lib.h: In function 'int fmcadc_mshot_buf_max_size_get(fmcadc_dev*, int*)': fmcadc-lib.h:202:74: warning: deprecated conversion from string constant to 'char*' [-Wwrite-strings] return fmcadc_get_param(dev, "cset0/max-sample-mshot", NULL, value); ------ This patch will suppress all these warning because what we are doing is correct. The message says that it's deprecated; probably at some point in time it will not be supported at all and we will see errors instead of warnings. This patch is suppressing only the warnings. For the time being we prefer this solution instead of casting strings to `(char *)` because it's ugly and unclear from C point of view. Signed-off-by:Juan David Gonzalez Cobas <dcobas@cern.ch>
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by:
-
- 21 Jun, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by:
-
- 01 Jun, 2016 2 commits
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by:
-
- 24 May, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by:
-
- 23 May, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by:
-
- 17 May, 2016 2 commits
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by:
-
- 21 Apr, 2016 5 commits
-
-
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by: -
Federico Vaga authored
It should make the code clear since the +1 and -1 (for the trigger sample) is done only when accessing the hardware. Otherwise, we cansider the trigger sample as part of the post samples Signed-off-by:
Dimitris Lampridis <Dimitris.Lampridis@cern.ch> -
Federico Vaga authored
Signed-off-by:
-
