This migrates the subsys code samples to the new Sphinx code-sample
extension, making it easier to find relevant samples when browsing
API reference.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Cabé <benjamin@zephyrproject.org>
As both C and C++ standards require applications running under an OS to
return 'int', adapt that for Zephyr to align with those standard. This also
eliminates errors when building with clang when not using -ffreestanding,
and reduces the need for compiler flags to silence warnings for both clang
and gcc.
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Currently there is inconsistency in repository file names, APIs, Kconfig
options and documentation around file / file-system backend for settings
storage, as both "file" and "FS (file system)" are used. As an example,
there is `CONFIG_SETTINGS_FS` Kconfig option, but the file that implements
this settings backend is called `settings_file.c`. Another example are
names of static functions that implement settings storage API:
`settings_file_load()`, `settings_file_save()` and
`settings_fs_storage_get()`.
This backend is actually storing all settings in a single file, so it makes
sense to use "File" as the name of backend, instead of a more general
"FS" (which would make sense if several files would be used to store
settings).
Fix inconsistency in used wording in the tree and unify it to "settings
file backend". This naming is more precise to how the implementation looks.
It will also make it easier to grep through the codebase and analyze
existing code.
Deprecate settings_mount_fs_backend() function and all Kconfig options
starting with `CONFIG_SETTINGS_FS`.
Signed-off-by: Marcin Niestroj <m.niestroj@emb.dev>
As of today <zephyr/zephyr.h> is 100% equivalent to <zephyr/kernel.h>.
This patch proposes to then include <zephyr/kernel.h> instead of
<zephyr/zephyr.h> since it is more clear that you are including the
Kernel APIs and (probably) nothing else. <zephyr/zephyr.h> sounds like a
catch-all header that may be confusing. Most applications need to
include a bunch of other things to compile, e.g. driver headers or
subsystem headers like BT, logging, etc.
The idea of a catch-all header in Zephyr is probably not feasible
anyway. Reason is that Zephyr is not a library, like it could be for
example `libpython`. Zephyr provides many utilities nowadays: a kernel,
drivers, subsystems, etc and things will likely grow. A catch-all header
would be massive, difficult to keep up-to-date. It is also likely that
an application will only build a small subset. Note that subsystem-level
headers may use a catch-all approach to make things easier, though.
NOTE: This patch is **NOT** removing the header, just removing its usage
in-tree. I'd advocate for its deprecation (add a #warning on it), but I
understand many people will have concerns.
Signed-off-by: Gerard Marull-Paretas <gerard.marull@nordicsemi.no>
Benjamin Cabé