Hi, On 1/10/23 20:13, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Sometimes the "why" of a commit is obvious, so it doesn't need to be > explained, but here it's really not and thus it definitely needs to > be. We have had various pings-pongs in the past about whether to EOI > before/after the interrupt, masking or not, etc. So we really need > a firm explanation, recorded in the git history, why we believe the > proposed way is now correct.
Yes, sorry about that. I think the logic for this should be: When we get irq N, first we mask irq N, then EOI irq N. Then call the handler. If there is a user handler for irq N, let the irq_ack unmask irq N, otherwise we need to unmask irq N now. But don't EOI in the user handlers anymore. What do you think? Damien
