Lpc2000

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Jayasooriah <jayasooriah@...> wrote:
> 
> In the OS that I run on many architectures and platforms (including 
ARM 
> variants) spurious interrupts trigger a kernel panic.  It signals 
system 
> failure. This behaviour of the OS is for compliance purposes.
> 
> Clearly it will not be certified to run on LPC because you can get 
spurious 
> interrupts that (according to FAQ/AN) are not indication that there 
is a 
> system failure.

I'm really baffled by your statements above: what you're effectively 
saying is that if the person porting an OS to a particular platform 
is prepared wilfully to ignore the (well-understood and well-
documented) issues with that platform, they won't get their 
OS "certified" (by whom incidentally?). All I can say to that is "so, 
what?". If you choose to ignore information provided by hardware 
vendors, then tough. The fix is simple and efficient to implement: no 
need for kernel panics or system failures.

By the way, it's completely irrelevant who's to "blame" for this 
(Philips or ARM or whoever): the only relevant thing is that the 
issue is documented and a fix provided (which it is).

It seems to me you are more interested in pointing fingers of blame 
at people, rather than contributing anything positive. The issue is 
already well understood and documented. What exactly are you trying 
to achieve or add to this?

Brendan