Passing vector number (was Re: API modification request)
eric.valette at free.fr
Tue Feb 4 12:17:12 UTC 2003
Till Straumann wrote:
> On the idea of passing a vector number:
> - it's certainly MUCH better than nothing (in this sense, the 'new'
> API present on PPC/X86 and ARM is a huge step back).
Step back that did not prevent to code anything :-)
> - the 'new' API could certainly pass the vector (irq->name) along.
> - however, IMO it's still preferrable to have the user argument:
> 1) vector number is BSP/hardware dependent (but needs to be
> known for installing the ISR anyways).
> 2) On hardware where you have to lookup the handler (i.e. a slot
> a 'connect_data' table, getting the 'arg' is not far away
> (see discussion on the original thread).
> 3) Makes porting vxWorks code is easier. IMO, this is important
> if we want to make migration as painless as possible.
I would tend to agree with Till : my personnal feeling is that the
vector itself is useless so I would vote for either a void* or nothing
/ ` Eric Valette
/-- __ o _. 6 rue Paul Le Flem
(___, / (_(_(__ 35740 Pace
Tel: +33 (0)2 99 85 26 76 Fax: +33 (0)2 99 85 26 76
E-mail: eric.valette at free.fr
More information about the users