[PATCH 15] shared-irq: add support for custom BSP vector verification

[Gedare Bloom]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Daniel Hellstrom <daniel at gaisler.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Hellstrom <daniel at gaisler.com>
> ---
>  c/src/lib/libbsp/shared/include/irq-generic.h |    2 ++
>  c/src/lib/libbsp/shared/include/irq.h         |    8 ++++++++
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/c/src/lib/libbsp/shared/include/irq-generic.h b/c/src/lib/libbsp/shared/include/irq-generic.h
> index 5181952..3cbb7db 100644
> --- a/c/src/lib/libbsp/shared/include/irq-generic.h
> +++ b/c/src/lib/libbsp/shared/include/irq-generic.h
> @@ -134,6 +134,7 @@ static inline rtems_vector_number bsp_interrupt_handler_index(
>  * @{
>  */
>
> +#if !defined(BSP_INTERRUPT_CUSTOM_VALID_VECTOR)
>  /**
>  * @brief Returns true if the interrupt vector with number @a vector is valid.
>  */
> @@ -142,6 +143,7 @@ static inline bool bsp_interrupt_is_valid_vector(rtems_vector_number vector)
>   return (rtems_vector_number) BSP_INTERRUPT_VECTOR_MIN <= vector
>     && vector <= (rtems_vector_number) BSP_INTERRUPT_VECTOR_MAX;
>  }
> +#endif
>
>  /**
>  * @brief Default interrupt handler.
> diff --git a/c/src/lib/libbsp/shared/include/irq.h b/c/src/lib/libbsp/shared/include/irq.h
> index ae57bd1..19aed6f 100644
> --- a/c/src/lib/libbsp/shared/include/irq.h
> +++ b/c/src/lib/libbsp/shared/include/irq.h
> @@ -72,6 +72,14 @@
>   typedef uint8_t bsp_interrupt_handler_index_type;
>  #endif
>
> +/**
> + * @brief Enable custom vector checking
> + *
> + * If defined the BSP must implement the custom bsp_interrupt_is_valid_vector()
> + * vector validator check routine.
> + */
> +#undef BSP_INTERRUPT_CUSTOM_VALID_VECTOR
> +
>  /** @} */
>
>  #endif /* LIBBSP_SHARED_IRQ_CONFIG_H */
> --
> 1.7.0.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-devel mailing list
> rtems-devel at rtems.org
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel

I can see a possible reason for this patch could be when valid vectors
do not necessarily fall within a range [min,max] so this patch seems
reasonable.