Hi Kaspar, I just looked in more detail on what you've done. Using submodules is fine for me, but I would like to change a key aspect here:
Make all pm_* implementations submodules, so the final CPU *always* has to select the according pm implementation. For cortexm_common this would allow us to get rid of all #ifdef stuff which is really ugly! Would that be fine? When do you plan to be finished with the submodules? I would really like to finish the pm architecture and finally use it! - Robert On 11.09.2017 09:01, Kaspar Schleiser wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/08/2017 11:28 AM, Robert Hartung wrote: >> Looks like it's not that easy. Many platforms define pm_reboot in the >> board's file(s). > > Only mips-malta has it's own "pm_reboot()" implementation. The other two > define stubs. > >> Additionally pm_layered does not define pm_reboot, the same applies for >> pm_off (pm_off can be modeled as pm_set_lowest(); irq_disable(); >> while(1) in pm_layered I guess ?). > > pm_layered does define pm_set_lowest() as weak exactly like that. > >> Therefore I will work on removing pm_reboot() from pm_fallback >> implementation and create additional modules if needed (at some points >> pm_reboot is defined outside of pm anyway). > > When designing periph/pm, we intentionally moved reboot from a core > include into periph/pm, as it seemed to fit together with pm_off(). > > Do you have a WIP branch somewhere? While working on #7241, I had to > implement a lot of what we've discussed, in order to make anything > compile with sumbodulized periph. Maybe you can take a look? the > requirements have changed a little. > > Kaspar > -- Robert Hartung, M.Sc. Technische Universität Braunschweig Institut für Betriebssysteme und Rechnerverbund Mühlenpfordtstr. 23, Raum 115 38106 Braunschweig Fon: +49 (531) 391 - 3264 Fax: +49 (531) 391 - 5936 E-Mail: hart...@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
