RTEMS | uC5282: Implement new interrupt system (!887)

[Vijay Banerjee (@vijay)]

Merge request https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/887 was reviewed by Vijay Banerjee

--
  
Vijay Banerjee started a new discussion on bsps/m68k/uC5282/include/bsp/irq.h: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/887#note_137877

 > -#include <bsp/irq-default.h>
 > +/*

Can we add an SPDX identifier and a doxygen block?

See https://docs.rtems.org/docs/main/eng/coding-file-hdr.html#c-c-header-file-template

--
  
Vijay Banerjee started a new discussion on bsps/m68k/uC5282/irq/irq.c: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/887#note_137878

 > +)
 > +{
 > +  return RTEMS_SUCCESSFUL;

Can we use standard rtems_interrupt* directives here?
https://docs.rtems.org/docs/main/c-user/interrupt/directives.html#rtems-interrupt-get-attributes

--
  
Vijay Banerjee started a new discussion on bsps/m68k/uC5282/irq/irq.c: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/887#note_137879

 > +}
 > +
 > +rtems_status_code bsp_interrupt_is_pending(

Same with this one

https://docs.rtems.org/docs/main/c-user/interrupt/directives.html#rtems-interrupt-is-pending

This applies to other functions below as well. Is it possible to use the standard rtems_interrupt* directives instead of redefining?


-- 
View it on GitLab: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/887
You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.rtems.org.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/bugs/attachments/20251228/604a0b77/attachment.htm>