79e6b0e0f6
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> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| src | ||
| CMakeLists.txt | ||
| custom-sections.ld | ||
| Kconfig | ||
| linker_arm_sram2.ld | ||
| linker_riscv_qemu_sram2.ld | ||
| prj_riscv.conf | ||
| prj.conf | ||
| README.rst | ||
| testcase.yaml | ||
.. _code_relocation: Code relocation ################# Overview ******** A simple example that demonstrates how relocation of code, data or bss sections using a custom linker script.