Move target implementations of NanostackRfPhy into nanostack-interface

[LDong-Arm]

Summary of changes

Fixes: #13109

Prior to this commit, target implementations of NanostackRfPhy are not guarded by any mbed_lib.json - they are always visible to the build even if the interface itself is not enabled
(e.g. when using the "requires" attribute of mbed_app.json). It causes build errors.

To resolve this, this commit move target code into nanostack-interface, similar to what we do with BLE, mbedtls, etc. where the target code sits alongside the APIs.

Impact of changes

Migration actions required

Documentation

None.

---

Pull request type

[x] Patch update (Bug fix / Target update / Docs update / Test update / Refactor)
[] Feature update (New feature / Functionality change / New API)
[] Major update (Breaking change E.g. Return code change / API behaviour change)

---

Test results

[] No Tests required for this change (E.g docs only update)
[x] Covered by existing mbed-os tests (Greentea or Unittest)
[] Tests / results supplied as part of this PR

---

Reviewers

@MarceloSalazar @ARMmbed/mbed-os-core

---

[LDong-Arm]

My only concern is, this PR moves the target code into the interface library. Though as said in the PR description, this is what we already do in BLE...

Alternatively, if we really want to separate target and interface directories, we would need a new mbed_lib.json with "name": "nanostack-targets" which could be an overhead if we need to update any existing examples to match that.

[ciarmcom]

@LDong-Arm, thank you for your changes.
@MarceloSalazar @ARMmbed/mbed-os-ipcore @ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers please review.

[LDong-Arm]

@LDong-Arm, thank you for your changes.
@MarceloSalazar @ARMmbed/mbed-os-ipcore @ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers please review.

I specified mbed-os-core in the description, but the script added mbed-os-ipcore instead? 🤨

[0xc0170]

It uses the predefined configuration so thus ipcore, but also core should be, will check

cc @adbridge

[0xc0170]

Please fix astyle failures

[adbridge]

We need to look at these once we do the review of the reviewers functionality. There is a Jira ticket for this in our backlog.

[MarceloSalazar]

@LDong-Arm thanks for the PR. I think this is good enough for now.
Ideally, we should re-structure the code and put it under a mbed_lib.json, so the Nanostack feature is only included when explicitly added in mbed_app.json. But that's something that should be done in the future.

Pull request has been modified.

[LDong-Arm]

Thanks for the reviews.
@0xc0170 I copied and applied the astyle suggestion from the CI run.
@MarceloSalazar Okay, I'm keeping the current solution then.

[rajkan01]

LGTM

[MarceloSalazar]

LGTM

[evedon]

@adbridge ready for CI

[adbridge]

CI started

[mbed-ci]

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 7 of 7 test jobs passed
Build number : 1
Build artifacts

[0xc0170]

I accidentally started a new CI job 🤦

[mbed-ci]

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 7 of 7 test jobs passed
Build number : 2
Build artifacts

[LDong-Arm]

Ideally, we should re-structure the code and put it under a mbed_lib.json, so the Nanostack feature is only included when explicitly added in mbed_app.json. But that's something that should be done in the future.

It looks like we need to do this - in the new directory structure we will move target drivers out from core connectivity libraries.