nuttx

a1x

…

am335x

arch/arm/include/amm335x: Trivial, cosmetic changes after review

2019-01-08 08:15:04 -06:00

arm

arch/arm/src/include/xxx/syscall.h: Align semi-hosting call style with other syscalls

2019-01-26 07:40:47 -06:00

armv6-m

arch/arm/src/include/xxx/syscall.h: Align semi-hosting call style with other syscalls

2019-01-26 07:40:47 -06:00

armv7-a

arch/arm/src/include/xxx/syscall.h: Align semi-hosting call style with other syscalls

2019-01-26 07:40:47 -06:00

armv7-m

arch/arm/include/syscall.h: Add missing inclusion of arch/armv7-r/syscall.h for CortexR.

2019-01-26 07:43:31 -06:00

armv7-r

arch/arm/src/include/xxx/syscall.h: Align semi-hosting call style with other syscalls

2019-01-26 07:40:47 -06:00

c5471

…

dm320

…

efm32

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

imx1

…

imx6

Fix lots of typos in C comments and Kconfig help text

2018-07-08 18:24:45 -06:00

imxrt

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

kinetis

Merged in dagar/nuttx/pr-kinetic_minor_fix (pull request #820 )

2019-01-19 15:39:46 +00:00

kl

arch/: Clean up some naming and spacing.

2018-06-20 15:38:06 -06:00

lc823450

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

lpc11xx

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

lpc17xx

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

lpc31xx

…

lpc43xx

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

lpc54xx

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

lpc214x

…

lpc2378

…

max326xx

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

moxart

…

nrf52

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

nuc1xx

…

sam34

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

sama5

…

samd2l2

Rename all usage of samdl/SAMDL to samd2l2/SAMD2L2 to make room in the name space for the forthcoming samd5e5/SAMD5E5

2018-07-22 15:54:12 -06:00

samd5e5

configs/metro-m4: Fix RxD interrupt pin selection. The number SERCOM interrupts do not refer to PAD numbers, but to bit positions in the INFLAG register (very tiny footnote in the data sheet). With with final fix, the basic NSH configuration appears fully functional.

2018-09-01 15:29:22 -06:00

samv7

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

stm32

Merged in raiden00/nuttx_pe (pull request #796 )

2019-01-02 12:12:28 +00:00

stm32f0l0

Merged in raiden00/nuttx_lora (pull request #811 )

2019-01-12 07:59:31 +00:00

stm32f7

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

stm32h7

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

stm32l4

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

str71x

…

tiva

arch/arm/include/tiva and src/tiva: Improve GPIO interrupt support by removing unnecessary, hard-coded per-MCU defines and using the existing Kconfig configuration options instead.

2018-12-31 07:19:30 -06:00

tms570

arch/arm/include/tms570, arm/src/armv7-r, and arm/src/tms570: Adds support for the TMS570LS3137ZWT and corrects seversl ARMv7-R and TMS570 issues

2018-04-18 08:58:36 -06:00

xmc4

In the current implementation we only use very high priority interrupts (levels 0, 0x10 and 0x20 in CORTEX-M speak) but that means there are loads of lower priority ones that are effectively unused. I have *not* changed the semantics of these levels but have 'shifted' them to be based around the midpoint of the available interrupts (0x80) rather than at the top end....that allows for interrupts to be defined above (or, indeed, below) them as needed by the application. This should have no functional effect on existing code but adds in a clean capability to define higher priority interrupts.

2018-12-03 17:41:59 -06:00

.gitignore

…

arch.h

…

elf.h

arch/arm/include/syscall.h: Add missing inclusion of arch/armv7-r/syscall.h for CortexR.

2019-01-26 07:43:31 -06:00

inttypes.h

…

irq.h

Squashed commit of the following:

2017-10-09 13:11:17 -06:00

limits.h

…

serial.h

…

spinlock.h

armv7-a, armv7-r, armv7-m: Add atomic read-add-write and read-subtract-write functions.

2018-02-04 12:22:03 -06:00

stdarg.h

…

syscall.h

arch/arm/include/syscall.h: Add missing inclusion of arch/armv7-r/syscall.h for CortexR.

2019-01-26 07:43:31 -06:00

tls.h

…

types.h

…