[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cpukit/bspkit split.
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 12:37 +0100, Thomas Doerfler wrote:
> I missed the beginning of this discussion thread (and the
> related once), but now, since things are getting a bit more
> concrete, I would join in:
> > 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.
> I agree totally. In cpukit, only those vector number should be
> defined, which belong to the cpu core. In fact for PowerPC,
> these vector numbers are "exception vectors", not interrupt
> vectors. Unfortunately, the exception vector numbers differ
> slightly from CPU core to CPU core.
Which means the corresponding code in RTEMS is mal-designed.
> The interrupt vector numbers are more or less PIC dependant,
> although they might be shared between boards with the same
> integrated chips like MPC860 or MPC8260. So they should be
> located somewhere in a bsp/shared directory (how about something
> like: lib/libbsp/powerpc/shared/mpc860/include/mpc860.h)
I disagree - you are shifting around problems. IMO, libcpu would be the