[subexp-daq] SIS3316 implementation in NURDLIB fixed

[Håkan T Johansson]

I think this was the most recent mail regarding the SIS3316.

To not let this drop, I rebased 'rebasing_sis3316_dma_align' on top of 
current master (no conflicts).  In the hope that this gets tested and 
then merged.

Cheers,
Håkan



On Sat, 23 Mar 2024, Håkan T Johansson wrote:

>
> Dear Günter,
>
> I just pushed a new branch 'rebasing_sis3316_dma_align' to gitlab which 
> changes to use that method instead.  It also moved the calculation of 
> bytes_to_read up, as otherwise warnings for possibly uninitialised variable 
> use were generated.
>
> I am not sure if the check for buffer overflow is taking into account other 
> data already added to the output.  This I think Hans is better to figure out.
>
> Perhaps too many variables at once, but this new branch has been rebased on 
> top of current nurdlib master.
>
> Cheers,
> Håkan
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, Weber, Guenter Dr. wrote:
>
>> 
>> Yes, I think you are right.
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________________________
>> Von: subexp-daq <subexp-daq-bounces at lists.chalmers.se> im Auftrag von Håkan
>> T Johansson <f96hajo at chalmers.se>
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 22. März 2024 17:37:42
>> An: Discuss use of Nurdlib, TRLO II, drasi and UCESB.
>> Betreff: Re: [subexp-daq] SIS3316 implementation in NURDLIB fixed  
>> 
>> Dear Günter,
>> 
>> just had a quick look:
>> 
>> This old code with +1 is surely not good:
>> 
>>                 bytes_to_read =
>>                     ((a_words_to_read * sizeof(uint32_t)) + 1) & ~0x7;
>> 
>> Since sizeof(uint32_t) is 4, the addition of 1 would not have any effect.
>> 
>> However, I'm a bit wondering about addint 8 (and 16 in the case of ~0xf).
>> 
>> How about the following:
>> 
>>                 bytes_to_read =
>>                     ((a_words_to_read * sizeof(uint32_t)) + 0x7) & ~0x7;
>> 
>> (and '+ 0xf' with '& ~0xf') ?
>> 
>> That ought to bring it up to the next boundary if the read count was
>> unaligned.  And the if-statements would not be needed.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Håkan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, Weber, Guenter Dr. wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> > Dear friends,
>> >
>> >
>> > we just pushed a fixed version of the SIS3316 implementation. Compared to
>> > the original version of REBASING_SIS3316 a lot of glitches in the code
>> were
>> > fixed in a first run a few days ago and now we finally also fixed a
>> > long-standing problem with the readout of the averaged traces.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Best greetings and have a nice weekend everybody
>> >
>> > Günter
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>