-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Define a platform hook interface and cleanup misuse of private calls #61547
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
changes make sense to me. we should document reserved internal prefixes like arch, platform, etc. Some CI checks would also be nice to prevent misuses (e.g. forbid arch_
/platform_
calls in samples/ or drivers/)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
any reason this can't be done with weak functions?
This has been the approch for some interfaces. This PR is mostly changing the naming and moving a fewthings upo to the architecture level, but not changing how the interfaces are implemented. |
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ | |||
.. _platform_cusomizations: | |||
|
|||
Hardware with Custom Interfaces |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems like a good first step towards closing the documentation gap between "board porting" and "soc" or "arch" porting.
This pull request has been marked as stale because it has been open (more than) 60 days with no activity. Remove the stale label or add a comment saying that you would like to have the label removed otherwise this pull request will automatically be closed in 14 days. Note, that you can always re-open a closed pull request at any time. |
Oh, I've got your point. P.S.: looks like this may provide a guideline for #65824 as well |
Move from private to internal call. This should probably be promoted to an API and implementation abstracted similar to what we do with other cache functions. Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
use BIT macro where possible. Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
84b86d9 introduced the ability of defining custom sys_io functions for riscv. This is however useful for all other architectures and there is nothing riscv specific about it. So instead of having this be riscv specific, move implementation to the common architecture code and make it available for everyone using PLATFORM_HAS_CUSTOM_SYS_IO. Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
Move from private hook names to internal using a common prefix for platform hooks. Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
Move from private hook names to internal using a common prefix for platform hooks. Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
Use platform_ instead of z_soc_ and make the feature generic supporting all architectures with CONFIG_PLATFORM_HAS_CUSTOM_IRQ_LOCK_OPS. Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
This call is not being used anywhere. Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
Rename platform hooks enabled with Kconfig from z_soc_ to platform_. Move from private hook names to internal using a common prefix for platform hooks. Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
Define a set of platform hooks. Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
Update with some fixes to API usage. Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
Although this option is now being used only by ARM, it is needed by other architectures, so make it global and change all occurances. Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
group all custom interface configs into one menu. Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
Rename all z_/z_arm_ call for setting irq priority to a new architecture interface shared by all architectures. Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
define additional routines that can be shared by other architectures. Right now this is only for ARM and will be moved up in the future. Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
Reorganize functions in header file for better fit. Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
To allow other interrupt controllers to be called. Signed-off-by: Anas Nashif <anas.nashif@intel.com>
the more I look into things and try to fix existing inconsistencies and interfaces, I realize how messy interrupt implementation is and how many ways exist to enable interrupt controllers that we need to fix ASAP, so for example, I do not think we need to support platform specific irq handling as this PR does and instead allow for this to be done using dedicated interrupt drivers, the same way we do this already on many architectures. |
When the provided support in Zephyr does not cover certain hardware platforms, | ||
some interfaces can be implemented directly by the platform or a custom | ||
architecture interface can be used and resulting in more flexibility and | ||
hardware support of differebt variants of the same hardware. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
typo differebt
|
||
When the provided support in Zephyr does not cover certain hardware platforms, | ||
some interfaces can be implemented directly by the platform or a custom | ||
architecture interface can be used and resulting in more flexibility and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
".. can be used and resulting .."
This whole sentence is a bit too tough to read.
just seen this #66505 |
This pull request has been marked as stale because it has been open (more than) 60 days with no activity. Remove the stale label or add a comment saying that you would like to have the label removed otherwise this pull request will automatically be closed in 14 days. Note, that you can always re-open a closed pull request at any time. |
This pull request has been marked as stale because it has been open (more than) 60 days with no activity. Remove the stale label or add a comment saying that you would like to have the label removed otherwise this pull request will automatically be closed in 14 days. Note, that you can always re-open a closed pull request at any time. |
@nashif any update for this PR? |
An attempt to cleanup misuse of private API call to define platform hooks and generalize the definition of hooks implemented by platforms overriding architecture implementation.
This also generalizes some hook implementations done for some architectures and made such implementation arch agnostic, allowing hooks to be implemented by any architecture.
Relates to #58007