This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the eCos project.
[Bug 1001787] GPIO Interrupt Support for Kinetis
- From: bugzilla-daemon at bugs dot ecos dot sourceware dot org
- To: ecos-patches at ecos dot sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:37:12 +0000
- Subject: [Bug 1001787] GPIO Interrupt Support for Kinetis
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-1001787-104 at http dot bugs dot ecos dot sourceware dot org/>
Please do not reply to this email, use the link below.
--- Comment #3 from Ilija Kocho <email@example.com> ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I made and tested the following change. I can make a patch later if you
> agree with it. This should allow arrays.
> On Interrupt Acknowledge, I wanted an interface that took an int for port i
> order to be consistent with the overall API, and with the datasheet, and
> with Assertions. However, a user could use the Macro directly like this:
> CYGHWR_HAL_KINETIS_PORT_PCR_ISFR_CLEAR(A, 5);
> This means the user can either choose the slower and safer API, or the Macro
> that already exists. I don't know if that is consistent with eCos principles
> or not, but this is why I made the choice. My feeling was a newbie would see
> the API and use it first. Then if they needed a little more performance,
> they would discover and use the MACRO. This is consistent with my design
> methodology, which is based on late optimization. However, I do recognize
> that embedded community may not operate on that principle as much as large
> system architects, which is my background.
> Let me know what you think. I can make more changes if this is not
I am conservative with introduction of new API functions because once API is
released people will start using it and we are stuck with that (Linus
I think that the macros do the job and are intuitive enough. True we lack
asserts but some errors, such as non existing port are reported by the
I would add functions some time to recheck. One problem is that the port
representation is different from macros (i know there's not help there). In
meantime we could focus on macros.
> #define CYGHWR_HAL_KINETIS_PIN_CFG(__port, __bit, __irqc, __mux, __cnf) \
> ((CYGHWR_HAL_KINETIS_PORT##__port << 20) | ((__bit) << 27) \
> | CYGHWR_HAL_KINETIS_PORT_PCR_IRQC(__irqc) \
> | CYGHWR_HAL_KINETIS_PORT_PCR_MUX(__mux) | (__cnf))
CFG is probably more intuitive than PINCD - OK. However I would put __mux next
to __port and __bit and __irqc next to __cnf. Rationale: __port, __bit, __mux
triplet represents kind of /addressing parameters/ and __irqc, __cnf are
> #define CYGHWR_HAL_KINETIS_PIN(__port, __bit, __mux, __cnf) \
> CYGHWR_HAL_KINETIS_PIN_CFG(__port, __bit, 0, __mux, __cnf)
Based on your example I expected some code for ISR handling. May, but doesn't
have to be. Please check if your patch is complete.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.