Thanks Will,
I was reading this which shows some headaches of the multi platform SOC
issues that Linux had.
https://archive.fosdem.org/2013/schedule/event/arm_in_the_linux_kernel/atta
chments/slides/273/export/events/attachments/arm_in_the_linux_kernel/slides
/273/arm_support_kernel.pdf
I
That is a good question; wish I had a good answer. For now we could kick the
can down the road and simply pass the priority in the API. Or just have the BSP
program the interrupt priority to 1 less than the lowest priority. We could
also return the interrupt vector used by the BSP to the OS and
I just pulled your changes and went to implement os_bsp_systick_init().
It was really just moving systick_init from os_arch_arm.c to os_bsp.c.
However, the current sys tick_init code needs an interrupt vector priority
which depends on the priority of the SVC. How should we resolve the
interrupt
Hello:
Porting the OS to the nrf51 has exposed an issue for certain cortex-M MCU’s,
namely the lack of SysTick. Furthermore, it may be advantageous from a power
perspective to use a different timer for the OS time tick. Thus, the problem is
this: how does the developer pick the timer to use
Well, that would have been a better way to put it if you ask me. :-)
A good example of picking a different timer would be time accuracy vs power
related savings. For example, a device that is constantly powered may want to
use a timer off a high accuracy crystal as opposed to one that is lower
I¹ll throw in my support as well.
Certainly on some processors different timers have different current draw
and require different sleep states. For wearables, this is super critical
for battery life. I expect that folks will want to use alternate timers
for the system tick to maximize battery
One more quick note.
I think that there are probably a number of things in the MCU that are
good defaults for most folks, but we may want to allow override in the
BSP. I wish I had a good list, but I don’t :(.
On 2/2/16, 2:43 PM, "p...@wrada.com" wrote:
>I¹ll throw in my