Mateusz Szafoni a9626f3ad3 /arch/arm/src/stm32: Bring in some mostly cosmetic updates from PR783 (most of the PR is going to the stm32f0l0 directory).		2018-12-18 10:53:49 -06:00
..
a1x
arm	arch/arm: (1) Add semihost support for syslog, (2) Add semihost support for HostFS	2018-08-23 08:00:07 -06:00
armv6-m	arch/arm: (1) Add semihost support for syslog, (2) Add semihost support for HostFS	2018-08-23 08:00:07 -06:00
armv7-a	arch/arm: (1) Add semihost support for syslog, (2) Add semihost support for HostFS	2018-08-23 08:00:07 -06:00
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	arch/arm: (1) Add semihost support for syslog, (2) Add semihost support for HostFS	2018-08-23 08:00:07 -06:00
bcm2708	arch/: Clean up some naming and spacing.	2018-06-20 15:38:06 -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	Fix lots of typos in C comments and Kconfig help text	2018-07-08 18:24:45 -06:00
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	arch/: Clean up some naming and spacing.	2018-06-20 15:38:06 -06:00
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	Cosmetic changes to spacing and comments.	2017-04-20 14:08:08 -06:00
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	Rename all usage of samdl/SAMDL to samd2l2/SAMD2L2 to make room in the name space for the forthcoming samd5e5/SAMD5E5	2018-07-22 15:54:12 -06:00
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	/arch/arm/src/stm32: Bring in some mostly cosmetic updates from PR783 (most of the PR is going to the stm32f0l0 directory).	2018-12-18 10:53:49 -06:00
stm32f0l0	Squashed commit of the following:	2018-12-16 10:50:16 -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	Squashed commit of the following:	2018-12-09 07:03:10 -06:00
tms570	arch/arm/include/tms570, arm/src/armv7-r, and arm/src/tms570: Adds support for the TMS570LS3137ZWT and corrects seversl ARMv7-R and TMS570 issues	2018-04-18 08:58:36 -06:00
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	Add architecture-specific inttypes.h	2016-10-27 16:01:38 -04:00
irq.h	Squashed commit of the following:	2017-10-09 13:11:17 -06:00
limits.h
serial.h
spinlock.h	armv7-a, armv7-r, armv7-m: Add atomic read-add-write and read-subtract-write functions.	2018-02-04 12:22:03 -06:00
stdarg.h
syscall.h
tls.h
types.h
watchdog.h