| .. |
|
a1x
|
…
|
|
|
am335x
|
arch/arm/include/amm335x: Trivial, cosmetic changes after review
|
2019-01-08 08:15:04 -06:00 |
|
arm
|
Update TODO list regarding non-queuing of signal actions; Add comments in code at areas where the issue applies.
|
2019-02-04 08:35:03 -06:00 |
|
armv6-m
|
Update TODO list regarding non-queuing of signal actions; Add comments in code at areas where the issue applies.
|
2019-02-04 08:35:03 -06:00 |
|
armv7-a
|
Update TODO list regarding non-queuing of signal actions; Add comments in code at areas where the issue applies.
|
2019-02-04 08:35:03 -06:00 |
|
armv7-m
|
Update TODO list regarding non-queuing of signal actions; Add comments in code at areas where the issue applies.
|
2019-02-04 08:35:03 -06:00 |
|
armv7-r
|
Update TODO list regarding non-queuing of signal actions; Add comments in code at areas where the issue applies.
|
2019-02-04 08:35:03 -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
|
arch/arm/include/nrf52/ and arch/arm/src/nrf52: 1. Added 52840 family support 2. Use common irq and memory layout header file for 52832 & 52840.
|
2019-03-12 09:43:49 -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
|
*Merged in zhoukejun/nuttx_nucleo-f767zi (pull request #838)
|
2019-03-11 03:44:57 +00:00 |
|
stm32h7
|
Merged in raiden00/nuttx_h7 (pull request #835)
|
2019-03-01 17:37:22 +00:00 |
|
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
|
arch/Kconfig: Move FPU options to a common place and unify the usage by removing ARCH_CORTEXRxF.
|
2019-03-19 10:26:15 -06:00 |
|
limits.h
|
…
|
|
|
spinlock.h
|
arch/Kconfig: Move FPU options to a common place and unify the usage by removing ARCH_CORTEXRxF.
|
2019-03-19 10:26:15 -06:00 |
|
stdarg.h
|
…
|
|
|
syscall.h
|
arch/Kconfig: Move FPU options to a common place and unify the usage by removing ARCH_CORTEXRxF.
|
2019-03-19 10:26:15 -06:00 |
|
tls.h
|
…
|
|
|
types.h
|
…
|
|
2f208fdde8