nuttx

a1x

…

am335x

arch/arm/include/amm335x: Trivial, cosmetic changes after review

2019-01-08 08:15:04 -06:00

arm

Update TODO list regarding non-queuing of signal actions; Add comments in code at areas where the issue applies.

2019-02-04 08:35:03 -06:00

armv6-m

Update TODO list regarding non-queuing of signal actions; Add comments in code at areas where the issue applies.

2019-02-04 08:35:03 -06:00

armv7-a

Update TODO list regarding non-queuing of signal actions; Add comments in code at areas where the issue applies.

2019-02-04 08:35:03 -06:00

armv7-m

Update TODO list regarding non-queuing of signal actions; Add comments in code at areas where the issue applies.

2019-02-04 08:35:03 -06:00

armv7-r

Update TODO list regarding non-queuing of signal actions; Add comments in code at areas where the issue applies.

2019-02-04 08:35:03 -06:00

c5471

…

dm320

…

efm32

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

imx1

…

imx6

…

imxrt

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

kinetis

Merged in dagar/nuttx/pr-kinetic_minor_fix (pull request #820 )

2019-01-19 15:39:46 +00:00

kl

…

lc823450

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

lpc11xx

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

lpc17xx

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

lpc31xx

…

lpc43xx

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

lpc54xx

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

lpc214x

…

lpc2378

…

max326xx

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

moxart

…

nrf52

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

nuc1xx

…

sam34

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

sama5

…

samd2l2

…

samd5e5

…

samv7

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

stm32

Merged in raiden00/nuttx_pe (pull request #796 )

2019-01-02 12:12:28 +00:00

stm32f0l0

Merged in raiden00/nuttx_lora (pull request #811 )

2019-01-12 07:59:31 +00:00

stm32f7

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

stm32h7

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

stm32l4

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

str71x

…

tiva

arch/arm/include/tiva and src/tiva: Improve GPIO interrupt support by removing unnecessary, hard-coded per-MCU defines and using the existing Kconfig configuration options instead.

2018-12-31 07:19:30 -06:00

tms570

…

xmc4

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

.gitignore

…

arch.h

…

elf.h

arch/arm/include/syscall.h: Add missing inclusion of arch/armv7-r/syscall.h for CortexR.

2019-01-26 07:43:31 -06:00

inttypes.h

…

irq.h

…

limits.h

…

spinlock.h

…

stdarg.h

…

syscall.h

arch/arm/include/syscall.h: Add missing inclusion of arch/armv7-r/syscall.h for CortexR.

2019-01-26 07:43:31 -06:00

tls.h

…

types.h

…