[PATCH v3 04/10] bsps: Break out AArch32 GICv3 support

[Kinsey Moore]

-----Original Message-----
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_.

Kinsey