As of today <zephyr/zephyr.h> is 100% equivalent to <zephyr/kernel.h>.
This patch proposes to then include <zephyr/kernel.h> instead of
<zephyr/zephyr.h> since it is more clear that you are including the
Kernel APIs and (probably) nothing else. <zephyr/zephyr.h> sounds like a
catch-all header that may be confusing. Most applications need to
include a bunch of other things to compile, e.g. driver headers or
subsystem headers like BT, logging, etc.
The idea of a catch-all header in Zephyr is probably not feasible
anyway. Reason is that Zephyr is not a library, like it could be for
example `libpython`. Zephyr provides many utilities nowadays: a kernel,
drivers, subsystems, etc and things will likely grow. A catch-all header
would be massive, difficult to keep up-to-date. It is also likely that
an application will only build a small subset. Note that subsystem-level
headers may use a catch-all approach to make things easier, though.
NOTE: This patch is **NOT** removing the header, just removing its usage
in-tree. I'd advocate for its deprecation (add a #warning on it), but I
understand many people will have concerns.
Signed-off-by: Gerard Marull-Paretas <gerard.marull@nordicsemi.no>
If assert triggers, display the current state in order not
to confuse assert message reader.
Same logic is used for following asserts.
Signed-off-by: Erwan Gouriou <erwan.gouriou@linaro.org>
Add a bunch of missing "zephyr/" prefixes to #include statements in
various test and test framework files.
Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri <fabiobaltieri@google.com>
In order to bring consistency in-tree, migrate all tests to the new
prefix <zephyr/...>. Note that the conversion has been scripted, refer
to #45388 for more details.
Signed-off-by: Gerard Marull-Paretas <gerard.marull@nordicsemi.no>
Aligning with the rest of PM API, replace pm_power_state_exit_post_ops
with pm_state_exit_post_ops.
Signed-off-by: Flavio Ceolin <flavio.ceolin@intel.com>
Return a constant reference to the next state instead of a copy of
struct pm_state_info. When the next state should be active, just return
NULL. Struct copying should be in general avoided, specially in code
paths executed frequently as is this one.
Signed-off-by: Gerard Marull-Paretas <gerard.marull@nordicsemi.no>
The device PM subsystem _depends_ on device, not vice-versa. Devices
only hold a reference to struct pm_device now, and initialize this
reference with the value provided in Z_DEVICE_DEFINE. This requirement
can be solved with a forward struct declaration, meaning there is no
need to include device PM headers.
Signed-off-by: Gerard Marull-Paretas <gerard.marull@nordicsemi.no>
