On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Sebastian Huber <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > ----- Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> schrieb: >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Joel Sherrill >> <joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 4/1/2015 10:01 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote: >> >> I didn't read much of this, but it needs doxygen, and probably part of >> >> the previous patch should be merged in here, or some better >> >> splitting/recombining of patches so I don't have to review code that >> >> gets fixed. It's worth repeating, the "rtems_*time" functions are not >> >> following the API conventions of rtems_package_method, it should be >> >> rtems_timecounter_*time like rtems_timecounter_bintime. >> >> >> >> Please use a short git-commit message for the first line, and longer >> >> git commit message after a blank line. This will avoid really long >> >> lines in git log, and long subjects in git-send-email. I guess this >> >> advice is in the Git page >> >> (https://devel.rtems.org/wiki/Developer/Git). >> > It is already combined so I am not going to complain but I see a method >> > renamed >> > in here (_TOD_Get). Personally I like a series of small patches and that >> > is an >> > example of something that could have been done independently. Remember >> > smaller patches are easier for everyone to review. It is often hard to >> > think that >> > way as you are working and knees deep in it, but it is important. >> > >> > Add an _ after _Timecount_Get and rtems_get_ in various API methods. But >> > the >> > rtems_get methods are (as Gedare pointed out) named incorrectly per the >> > RTEMS API naming patterns. >> > >> The _ after get may not be needed if there is a reason such as wanting >> to be close to an upstream interface. > > The names are derived from the FreeBSD <sys/time.h> kernel space API, e.g. > bintime() -> rtems_bintime(). These functions have per se nothing to do with > timecounters. The timecounters are just one way to implement this API. So > maybe the <rtems/timecounter.h> header file is wrongly named, what about > <rtems/time.h>? > Do you prefer to nest it under rtems/sys/time.h? I'd worry about a clash some day in the header names otherwise. (I'm also not sure what the status of the includes will be after the source code reorg, but one problem at a time.)
Should we consider making the "namespace" somehow point back to the bsd/freebsd instead? Rather than come up with a useful namespace for every function we mimic from the bsd kernel, something like: rtems_bsd_bintime() makes sense to me. > The driver interface function is _Timecounter_Install(). Should we provide a > rtems_timecounter_install()? If the function is expected to be called from user code, then yes. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
