Proc32 and node number

I’m using the -l !b option to Proc to read the node number from a hardware
DIP switch. Whils this works fine, the node number is always one more than
the number set on the switch. I presume this is to prevent someone from
trying to set node 0? However, this ends up being confusing. Any chance of a
future release having an additional option to Proc32 such that the node
number is as set in the hardware?

thanks

Julian Thornhill

“Julian Thornhill” <jth@ion.le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:97nnmg$2tk$1@inn.qnx.com

I’m using the -l !b option to Proc to read the node number from a hardware
DIP switch. Whils this works fine, the node number is always one more than
the number set on the switch. I presume this is to prevent someone from
trying to set node 0? However, this ends up being confusing. Any chance of
a
future release having an additional option to Proc32 such that the node
number is as set in the hardware?

I don’t thing so Julian, that would break compability.

thanks

Julian Thornhill

“Mario Charest” <mcharest@antispam_zinformatic.com> wrote in message
news:97o03q$84u$1@inn.qnx.com

“Julian Thornhill” <> jth@ion.le.ac.uk> > wrote in message
news:97nnmg$2tk$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
I’m using the -l !b option to Proc to read the node number from a
hardware
DIP switch. Whils this works fine, the node number is always one more
than
the number set on the switch. I presume this is to prevent someone from
trying to set node 0? However, this ends up being confusing. Any chance
of
a
future release having an additional option to Proc32 such that the node
number is as set in the hardware?


I don’t thing so Julian, that would break compability.

Woops you wrote “additional” option, I missed that sorry.

thanks

Julian Thornhill
\

Julian Thornhill <jth@ion.le.ac.uk> wrote:

I’m using the -l !b option to Proc to read the node number from a hardware
DIP switch. Whils this works fine, the node number is always one more than
the number set on the switch. I presume this is to prevent someone from
trying to set node 0? However, this ends up being confusing. Any chance of a
future release having an additional option to Proc32 such that the node
number is as set in the hardware?

Try putting (in order) on the command line:

Proc32 -l0 -l!b{port}

-David

QNX Training Services
dagibbs@qnx.com

“David Gibbs” <dagibbs@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:97olao$8f4$1@nntp.qnx.com

Julian Thornhill <> jth@ion.le.ac.uk> > wrote:
I’m using the -l !b option to Proc to read the node number from a
hardware
DIP switch. Whils this works fine, the node number is always one more
than
the number set on the switch. I presume this is to prevent someone from
trying to set node 0? However, this ends up being confusing. Any chance
of a
future release having an additional option to Proc32 such that the node
number is as set in the hardware?

Try putting (in order) on the command line:

Proc32 -l0 -l!b{port}

-David
That is a wonderful bit of command line magic! Works a treat. I see that I

can actually boot the system as node 0, although none of the networking
works. (To be expected really.) Is it luck that it works as node 0, or does
node 0 have some special debug significance, such as boot with no working
network?

thanks

Julian Thornhill

Julian Thornhill <jth@ion.le.ac.uk> wrote:

“David Gibbs” <> dagibbs@qnx.com> > wrote in message

Try putting (in order) on the command line:

Proc32 -l0 -l!b{port}

-David
That is a wonderful bit of command line magic! Works a treat. I see that I
can actually boot the system as node 0, although none of the networking
works. (To be expected really.) Is it luck that it works as node 0, or does
node 0 have some special debug significance, such as boot with no working
network?

I don’t actually know. I know networking won’t work – as node ids
for netmap and networking purposes start at 1. (And nid of 0 can be
used as an alias for “my node id”, as it isn’t a valid node id.) I
haven’t checked through to see if there are any specific side effects
or behaviours associated with have a node id of 0. I wouldn’t
recommend doing so, though, as you would be running with an invalid
node id, and may wander down untested code paths.

-David

QNX Training Services
dagibbs@qnx.com