xiaoxiang781216 commented on PR #15072: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15072#issuecomment-2524854528
> > > I don't agree with this change. ISB, DMB and DSB are well documented ARM/ARM64 instructions, so the naming is coherent already. > > > If you insist, you can remove the ARM64_ prefix, but even that is unnecessary IMO, as it would require updating all downstream code as well for no benefit. > > > Can you explain what is the motivation for this change? Why must we use similar names to RISC-V in arch specific code? > > > > > > If you want to share the same driver around the different arch, it's important to keep this basic operation same around all arch. > > If a common set of barrier macros are needed in the common kernel drivers, then you can define a common set of macros that the arch specific macros are forwarded to, instead of renaming the existing ones. Why do you insist keep two set of macros (__DSB and ARM64_DSB/RISCV_DSB) which has the same functionality? developers may randomly select one to use, which just make the confusion and inconsistence. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
