nuttx

a1x

…

arm

…

armv6-m

…

armv7-a

…

armv7-m

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

armv7-r

…

bcm2708

…

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

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

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

configs/metro-m4: Fix RxD interrupt pin selection. The number SERCOM interrupts do not refer to PAD numbers, but to bit positions in the INFLAG register (very tiny footnote in the data sheet). With with final fix, the basic NSH configuration appears fully functional.

2018-09-01 15:29:22 -06:00

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

Brings in initial WIP support for the STML0. This initial commit is in pretty bad shape and, hence it it marked EXPERIMENTAL."

2018-12-19 12:36:35 -06:00

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

…

inttypes.h

…

irq.h

…

limits.h

…

serial.h

…

spinlock.h

…

stdarg.h

…

syscall.h

…

tls.h

…

types.h

…

watchdog.h

…