Re: deprecation policy


Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky <inaky.perez-gonzalez@...>
 

I think it calls for a separate include

I'd put public app interfaces in include/zephyr

anything in include/ itself is a private kernel interface, fair game (same applies to include/subarea)
________________________________________
From: Kumar Gala [kumar.gala(a)linaro.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 1:24 AM
To: Boie, Andrew P
Cc: Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky; devel(a)lists.zephyrproject.org
Subject: Re: [devel] deprecation policy

On Jul 28, 2016, at 10:29 PM, Boie, Andrew P <andrew.p.boie(a)intel.com> wrote:


From: Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 5:33 PM
To: Boie, Andrew P; devel(a)lists.zephyrproject.org
Subject: RE: deprecation policy

Are there any in-kernel users?
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.

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.

- k

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