[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
i386ex: pc386 references
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:11:23 -0700
- From: erik.ivanenko at utoronto.ca (erik.ivanenko)
- Subject: i386ex: pc386 references
VALETTE Eric wrote:
> >>>>> "joel" == joel <joel at OARcorp.com> writes:
> joel> On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, VALETTE Eric wrote:
> joel> Is there a distinction between PC386 and PC_386? (PC386_IRQ_VECTOR_BASE
> joel> and PC_386_IRQ_LINES_NUMBER for example)
> No that is a typo (that originates in the fact that PC386_IRQ_VECTOR_BASE
> was already defined before my changes...),
> joel> The proposal is to replace:
> joel> + pc386 with i386_with_i8259
> joel> + PC_386 with PC386
> joel> + PC386 with I386_WITH_I8259
> That is fine for me...
>From my previous mail, I would resist the temptation to label these things with
I386, because it gives you no added information, and in fact conflicts with I386
designations outside of the i386 family of BSPs.
I would also remove the "pc386_" references everywhere, or replace with BSP_.
I'd not add the i8259 references either, I don't see the point of having them.
A few test subsitutions give us names like:
i386_delete_idt_entry <- from libcpu
i386_set_idt_entry <- from libcpu
i386_isr_entry set_vector <- from i386ex/startup/setvec.c /* I should change this
name or remove this function I don't think it is needed!!! */
It's clear to me where these are defined, and what they do.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 291 bytes
Desc: Card for Erik Ivanenko
Url : http://rtems.rtems.org/pipermail/rtems-users/attachments/19980924/fd69af31/attachment.vcf