Add header files with shared code between host and device side

xmos / lib_device_control

xCORE device control library

Other

2 stars 16 forks source link

Add header files with shared code between host and device side #107

Closed lucianomartin closed 3 months ago

lucianomartin commented 3 months ago

This PR is a work in progress, and it is not ready to be merged.

This PR does the following:

move from API file control.h the code used by both device and host side to the new API file control_shared.h
rename the non-API control_transport.h to control_transport_shared.h , and include improved comments from the device control code of fwk_rtos
move the file control_host_support.h from lib_device_control/src to lib_device_control/host
update the include guards from __abcde_h__ to ABCDE_H_
update tests where necessary
update xmos_jenkins_shared_library to the latest version

Part of https://xmosjira.atlassian.net/browse/LSM-73

xross commented 3 months ago

Please add an entry in the changelog to describe changes :)

lucianomartin commented 3 months ago

Im wondering why the USE_I2C, USE_USE etc defines are required. They seem to remove unused code - which the compiler should handle? Unless I missed something.

If they are required they should be prepended with the lib name to avoid clashes (they are very generic name.

I don't think they are necessary, they were just used to make the code more clear. I will remove them nevertheless.

lucianomartin commented 3 months ago

Im wondering why the USE_I2C, USE_USE etc defines are required. They seem to remove unused code - which the compiler should handle? Unless I missed something. If they are required they should be prepended with the lib name to avoid clashes (they are very generic name.

I don't think they are necessary, they were just used to make the code more clear. I will remove them nevertheless.

@xross, these defines are already present in lib_device_control, for example here, so they are probably necessary for the host code.

Should I rename the existing ones?
Should I remove the new ones I added?

xross commented 3 months ago

Im wondering why the USE_I2C, USE_USE etc defines are required. They seem to remove unused code - which the compiler should handle? Unless I missed something. If they are required they should be prepended with the lib name to avoid clashes (they are very generic name.

I don't think they are necessary, they were just used to make the code more clear. I will remove them nevertheless.

@xross, these defines are already present in lib_device_control, for example here, so they are probably necessary for the host code.

Should I rename the existing ones?

Should I remove the new ones I added?

I'd be less concerned about clashes in host code - because we don't build up apps from lots of libs/modules. Making them match between host and device would likely be nice though.

As to if the device ones need removing - if they are just added to remove code id remove them - they just add complexity to the API.