Passing vector number (was Re: API modification request)

[Joel Sherrill]

Valette Eric wrote:
> 
> 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
> (sorry joel).

No need to apologize to me.  I think a pointer is more useful. :)



> --
>     __
>    /  `                         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

-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel at OARcorp.com                 On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available                (256) 722-9985