Indan Zupancic
Indan Zupancic
> I feel like it would still be easier to do as Gerwin and I discussed earlier ([#1539 (comment)](https://github.com/seL4/seL4/pull/1539#discussion_r2485063130)), where we track whether or not we got an undelivered IRQ,...
Main changes: - Changed to 64-bit only version. - Moved all domain code from tcb.c to src/object/domain.c - Removed `activate` argument.
> I may be missing something but my understanding is that sel4.h should include everything from libsel4 so that users only have to include sel4.h. Should it though? What about...
I have no preference either way, leaving it as it is, or adding the includes.
Aren't these just kind of IRQ multiplexers that end up sending IRQs to the GIC as usual? That is, the CPU has no direct support for them, you still need...
> All the `interrupt-controller`s other than the GIC seem to have an SPI IRQ associated with the GIC from looking at the Device Tree. seL4 has GICv3 support, but no...
> > seL4 has GICv3 support, but no support for ITS and LPIs. It might be that that's needed to use some peripherals on this or future SoCs. > >...
I think this would be a step in the right direction. > MCS changes the parameters of the invocations from non-mcs and so we try assign different invocation labels for...
> The only problem can I see is that the compiler no longer warns you if you are using an invocation label that the current config does not support. If...
Surely that's a long-term project that will take years. By then we can remove the union and only keep the array. Or we just define two structures and add a...