This is the mail archive of the ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the eCos project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: hal_idle_thread_action on ARM


Daniel Néri wrote:
Nick Garnett <nickg@ecoscentric.com> writes:


This patch seem over-complicated for what it does. And defining
hal_arm_var_idle_thread_action() in hal_arch.h is not right.

The way we have done this kind of thing in the past, with interrupt
controller macros, cache macros etc. is to do something like this:


OK, fair enough. I'll have another go at it. The names var_arch.h and
plf_arch.h look awkward to me, but since they already exist in
e.g. the MIPS HAL I guess it's OK.

It's what I was getting at too, the only clarification I'd make to Nick's post is that the reason I brought up interfaces at all is because the ARM HAL doesn't include variant or platform arch.h files from hal_arch.h.


Although I do disagree with Nick on one issue: he suggests including a var_arch.h from hal_arch.h, rather than a plf_arch.h. It seems more reasonable to include plf_arch.h to me directly in the ARM HAL because not every HAL is defined with a variant, so it would be a bit lame for a platform HAL port to include a var_arch.h.

Of course the plf_arch.h can include var_arch.h if it the platform knows it depends on a variant HAL.

Daniel, have you got something yet, or should I just go ahead and do my own thing? I'd like to commit the var_io.h patch with it and your subsequent patch too, but I don't want to interfere with it if you're still looking at it!

Thanks,

Jifl
--
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]