hal_idle_thread_action on ARM

[Jonathan Larmour]

Daniel Néri wrote:
> Nick Garnett <nickg@ecoscentric.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>This patch seem over-complicated for what it does. And defining
>>hal_arm_var_idle_thread_action() in hal_arch.h is not right.
>>
>>The way we have done this kind of thing in the past, with interrupt
>>controller macros, cache macros etc. is to do something like this:
> 
> 
> OK, fair enough. I'll have another go at it. The names var_arch.h and
> plf_arch.h look awkward to me, but since they already exist in
> e.g. the MIPS HAL I guess it's OK.

It's what I was getting at too, the only clarification I'd make to Nick's 
post is that the reason I brought up interfaces at all is because the ARM 
HAL doesn't include variant or platform arch.h files from hal_arch.h.

Although I do disagree with Nick on one issue: he suggests including a 
var_arch.h from hal_arch.h, rather than a plf_arch.h. It seems more 
reasonable to include plf_arch.h to me directly in the ARM HAL because not 
every HAL is defined with a variant, so it would be a bit lame for a 
platform HAL port to include a var_arch.h.

Of course the plf_arch.h can include var_arch.h if it the platform knows 
it depends on a variant HAL.

Daniel, have you got something yet, or should I just go ahead and do my 
own thing? I'd like to commit the var_io.h patch with it and your 
subsequent patch too, but I don't want to interfere with it if you're 
still looking at it!

Thanks,

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine