On May 2, 2007, at 9:41 AM, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 10:21:14AM -0400, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 10:01 am, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
What do you think about such an interface? Useful?
Now that I think about it, that code is called near the end of the
relevant part of zt_recieve . Calling it a bit earlier may have given
the called spans a slightly cleaner spans (e.g: independent on the
number of pseudo channels).
I'd written about this a few years ago, wherein you had multiple
cards in a
system and only the first detected card would have its physical
interrupt
unmasked. Essentially you could put four quadspan cards in and have
a single
1ms interrupt service all spans.
What do you think of expanding the patch to disable interrupts on
subsequent
cards?
That approach helps for multiple cards that are driven by the same
driver. What about a system with two different card types?
Yeah, and cards that the DMA data transfer is synchronized across cards
as well. That's a wrong assumption in just about every case. The only
time you can do that (at least with Digium cards, TE4xxp and TE2xxp) is
if you share timing across cards using the external timing bus.
Matthew Fredrickson
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
