Avi Weiss commented on a discussion: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1218#note_149358 Sure @ppisa I see the logic there. If you don't have the unlock/lock you would need to make it very clear in the API that those need to be done separately. Right now it just silently fails with no notification your set/clear were not applied. Having said that, I don't see any real reason not to add the unlock to `tms570_bsp_pin_set_function` (and clear). Coudln't you also accidentally call `tms570_bsp_pin_config_one`? We either trust that users are intentionally setting pins or not - if they call a pin set function, they want to set a pin... I viewed the 2 functions more as alternatives - i.e. if I already have a pre-defined macro (e.g. `TMS570_BALL_W3_SCIRX`) I can use `tms570_bsp_pin_config_one`, otherwise if I don't I can call `tms570_bsp_pin_set_function` and give it the `pin_num` and `pin_func` directly. I didn't really see them as "this one won't work unless you've already unlocked the IOMM (and to be safe disabled interrupts) and this one will". I leave it to you to make the final call. -- View it on GitLab: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1218#note_149358 You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.rtems.org.
_______________________________________________ bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/bugs
