[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: cpukit/bspkit split.

"Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>" <joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com> writes:
> Sergei Organov wrote:
> >>"Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>" <joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com> writes:
> >>If everyone keeps offering constructive criticism and saying CPU X and Y
> >>should be able to use the same multilib, then we will make it.
> >
> > That won't help to fix "powerpc.h", especially its mpc860 and mpc8260
> > interrupts definitions, I'm afraid. I think external (to the CPU core)
> > interrupts just shouldn't be there, -- only architecture-defined
> > exceptions. The fact that a PIC is built into the chip isn't an excuse
> > to put that vectors into this file.
> How do you get a unified set of vector numbers for external interrupts for
> device drivers?

Are these device drivers supposed to be part of cpukit? If not, and I do
think they shouldn't be, then the question is irrelevant to the cpukit
interface, -- all these definitions should be put into another file that
must not be included by the header that defines cpukit interface.