Re: at91 HAL patch

[Laurent GONZALEZ <laurent dot gonzalez at silicomp dot fr>]

Okay, we're now on the same wavelength !
That's a good idea.
However, i think that the include should happen in the inverse order.
As plf_io.h will use var_io.h definition, the former should include the latter.
Thus plf_io.h will looks like :

#include <cyg/hal/var_io.h>

#define MYBOARD_LED1 AT91_PIO_PIN9
#define MYBOARD_LED2 AT91_PIO_PIN10
etc ...

and application code will be easier to port from a platform to another because (AFAIK)
#include <cyg/hal/plf_io.h> 
is more widely used than 
#include <cyg/hal/var_io.h>



On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:41:27 +0200
"Koeller, T." <Thomas.Koeller@baslerweb.com> wrote:

> Sorry for confusing you. I was not referring to the PIO bit
> definitions here, what I meant to say was that it would be
> advantageous in general to move the #include to the end of
> var_io.h because I could then use any definitions from var_io.h
> as a basis for platform-specific #defines, so as to indicate
> the use a platform makes of a particular hardware feature.
> 
> tk
> ----------------------------------------------- 
> Thomas Koeller, Software Development 
> 
> Basler Vision Technologies 
> An der Strusbek 60-62 
> 22926 Ahrensburg 
> Germany 
> 
> Tel +49 (4102) 463-390 
> Fax +49 (4102) 463-46390
> 
> mailto:Thomas.Koeller@baslerweb.com 
> http://www.baslerweb.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Laurent GONZALEZ [mailto:laurent.gonzalez@silicomp.fr]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 4:14 PM
> > To: Koeller, T.
> > Cc: 'Andrew Lunn'; ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com
> > Subject: Re: at91 HAL patch
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:39:34 +0200
> > "Koeller, T." <Thomas.Koeller@baslerweb.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Just another related thought:
> > > Wouldn't it be more sensible to include the platform header
> > > (plf_io.h) at the end of var_io.h instead of near the beginning,
> > > as is the case now? Then its contents could refer to the
> > > definitions contained in var_io.h, for example, assign
> > > meaningful (in the platform context) names to I/O pins.
> > > 
> > > tk
> > 
> > Yes, it is possible. But if you do that, all board (at91/ebxx 
> > or at91/custom_board) that uses the same mcu (say at91r40807) 
> > will provide the same definitions in their own plf_io.h .
> > PIO bit definitions should definitively be in var_io.h . As 
> > at91/var provide support for several mcus, it should also 
> > provide PIO bit definitions for each of them.
> > IMHO, at91_var shall contain the user API (eg register 
> > definitions) and include processor specific var_io.h like 
> > file for bit field definition (include/x40/x40_pio_pins.h, 
> > include/x55/x55_pio_pins.h, ...).
> > 
> > regards,
> > 
> > -- 
> > GONZALEZ Laurent
> > Silicomp Research Institute
> > Tel: 04 76 41 66 98
> > 
> 


-- 
GONZALEZ Laurent
Silicomp Research Institute
Tel: 04 76 41 66 98