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>
17 lines
394 B
C
17 lines
394 B
C
/*
|
|
* Copyright (c) 2022 Carlo Caione <ccaione@baylibre.com>
|
|
*
|
|
* SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
#include <zephyr/kernel.h>
|
|
#include <zephyr/sys/printk.h>
|
|
|
|
uint32_t var_ext_sram_data = 10U;
|
|
|
|
void function_in_ext_flash(void)
|
|
{
|
|
printk("Address of %s %p\n", __func__, &function_in_ext_flash);
|
|
printk("Address of var_ext_sram_data %p (%d)\n", &var_ext_sram_data, var_ext_sram_data);
|
|
}
|