Re: deprecation policy


Patel, Niheer <Niheer.Patel@...>
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Boie, Andrew P [mailto:andrew.p.boie(a)intel.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 10:57 AM
To: kumar.gala(a)linaro.org
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:

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
IRQs.
Was it expected that the interface was for kernel code only?  If so, I
think its fair game to remove.
They were exposed to the application level. They both were concerned with
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 probably
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.
Agreed, I don't think we have a concrete policy. We may need the TSC to weigh
in.
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.

Regards,
Niheer


Andrew

Join devel@lists.zephyrproject.org to automatically receive all group messages.