Patel, Niheer <Niheer.Patel@...>
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: Boie, Andrew P [mailto:andrew.p.boie(a)intel.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 10:57 AM
Cc: devel(a)lists.zephyrproject.org; PEREZ-GONZALEZ, INAKY
Subject: [devel] Re: Re: deprecation policy
On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 12:24 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
They were exposed to the application level. They both were concerned with
Was it expected that the interface was for kernel code only? If so, I
No not at this time. There is one reference to dynamic IRQs, in the
task IRQ code. No kernel or sample/testcase code that uses task
think its fair game to remove.
installing interrupt handlers dynamically at runtime. The preferred approach
nowadays is to configure interrupts statically at build time, as removing dynamic
interrupts presents the option on XIP systems to keep certain large-ish data
structures like the IDT in ROM.
If this was intended for some application code, we should probablyAgreed, I don't think we have a concrete policy. We may need the TSC to weigh
come up with with a documented policy about how we intend to address
such issues going forward. I’m guessing in the short term for this
case its probably fine. I keep think we need some means to try and
have a clearer definition of application interfaces vs kernel.
I have added two separate agenda items for the TSC on Wednesday to discuss separately or together as it makes sense.
1. General deprecation policy
2. Defining application versus kernel interfaces.