It is required for any CPU architecture that has asymmetry in code and data
space addresses.
It is a bad idea to remove it. There is no benefit to remonving it and
there is most certainly a downside.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 7:06 AM Petro Karashchenko <
petro.karashche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello team,
>
> Recently I noticed that some structures in common code use CODE
> keyword for pointers to functions and some do not, so I have the
> question: is CODE keyword still supported?
> Here are few examples:
> struct automount_lower_s
> {
> ...
> CODE int (*attach)(FAR const struct automount_lower_s *lower,
> automount_handler_t isr, FAR void *arg);
> CODE void (*enable)(FAR const struct automount_lower_s *lower,
> bool enable);
> CODE bool (*inserted)(FAR const struct automount_lower_s *lower);
> };
> vs
> struct file_operations
> {
> int (*open)(FAR struct file *filep);
> int (*close)(FAR struct file *filep);
> ssize_t (*read)(FAR struct file *filep, FAR char *buffer, size_t buflen);
> ssize_t (*write)(FAR struct file *filep, FAR const char *buffer,
> size_t buflen);
> off_t (*seek)(FAR struct file *filep, off_t offset, int whence);
> int (*ioctl)(FAR struct file *filep, int cmd, unsigned long arg);
>
> /* The two structures need not be common after this point */
>
> int (*poll)(FAR struct file *filep, struct pollfd *fds, bool setup);
> #ifndef CONFIG_DISABLE_PSEUDOFS_OPERATIONS
> int (*unlink)(FAR struct inode *inode);
> #endif
> };
>
> Will appreciate your feedback.
>
> Best regards,
> Petro
>
