[PATCH v3 04/10] bsps: Break out AArch32 GICv3 support
kinsey.moore at oarcorp.com
Mon Oct 5 17:34:46 UTC 2020
From: Sebastian Huber <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 08:10
To: joel at rtems.org
Cc: Kinsey Moore <kinsey.moore at oarcorp.com>; rtems-devel at rtems.org <devel at rtems.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] bsps: Break out AArch32 GICv3 support
On 05/10/2020 14:27, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 2:04 AM Sebastian Huber
> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
> <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
> On 04/10/2020 06:18, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * This architecture-specific function sets the exception
> vector for handling
> > + * IRQs.
> > + */
> > +void aarch_interrupt_facility_set_exception_handler(void);
> What are the rules for using an aarch prefix instead of an arm prefix?
> I haven't talked to Kinsey about this but I would assume based on the
> terminology I see in ARM documentation.
> + arm - only 32-bit. Now referred to as aarch32 or A32
> + aarch64 - only 64-bit. AKA A64
> + aarch - shared across 32 and 64 bit modes.
> Looks like Microsoft also uses ARM32 and ARM64
Linux uses "arm" and "arm64". You find some aarch32 stuff in "arch/arm64" but not in "arch/arm". I think we should do the same.
Existing and shared stuff between "arm" and "aarch64" should just use "arm".
Joel was correct as to my reasoning behind using that prefix. It sounds like arm_ is the preferred prefix for shared code in that vein, so I'll swap the relevant patches over to that instead of aarch_.
More information about the devel