Sure. I will be glad to work with you on making it better. Thanks.

device called In this RFC I tried to keep the main ideas and feedbacks from the original RFCs but made some modifications as I encountered issues during implementation. These should not impact the

Hey Pawel,

Hi Ramesh,

Implementing this. +1 I'm supporting this now and will implement this on some reference module as example for the following patch set.

I understand, for this first effort the goal is to unify calls under a single API that can be later provided by different implementations. I don't foresee conflicts between initial proposal and

Although a namespace is needed (as noted bellow) debug is not the only goal of this infrastructure INFO and ERROR level might be used for big production environments in the future. I reused some

The peripherals utilizing UART were required to register their own ISR rountines. This means that all those peripherals drivers need to know which IRQ line is attached to a UART controller, and

Yes, after the timeout expires, delta_ticks_from_prev is -1. I agree, we can check it and not use any flag. This can be implemented. In this case nano_timer_test() places the nano_timeout part of

I don't think you need this expired flag: delta_ticks_from_prev is either 0 or -1 when the timeout expires (-1 I think). I would prefer if we had a nano_timer object that is a wrapper around

This is to give an opportunity for the PM service app to do additional operations saving power around the tickless idle i.e. do more than just rely on the power savings achieved by HLT that is done by

With all due respect what are you talking about? Tickless idle and PM are orthogonal! Tickless idle means we don't come out of idle to just serve periodic timer interrupts, we come out of idle for the

Hi guys, Quoting D'alton, Alexandre (2016-02-29 12:22:31) In terms of 'implementation details', should we have two drivers under drivers/counter/ e.g. quark_aon_counter.c and quark_aon_timer.c?

Missed addressing one comment on write function.

Do you mind taking a look here https://github.com/bboozzoo/zephyr/tree/bboozzoo/stm32f103-next-soc-layout-change and sending some feedback? The branch implements this layout: arch/ arm/ soc/

There is a basic disconnects between my original RFC and this one. In mine all drivers are required to provide an implementation of suspend/resume even if it is null. All the information for the