Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in
the > ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq is
more > obvious. On non-PPC archs it would translate to *_irq_enable.
I
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in
the > ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq is
more > obvious. On non-PPC archs it would translate to *_irq_enable.
I
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrup
> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
>
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> >>
> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
>
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>
> > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>
>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> > Therefore we need a dedicated function t
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in
the > ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq is
more > obvious. On non-PPC archs it would translate to *_ir
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in
the > ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, b
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>
>> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
>>
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in
the > ISR. We could name it *_end_i
> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
>
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> >> > Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in
> >> the > ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> > Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in
>> the > ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq is
>> more > obvious. On non-PPC archs it would translate to *_irq_enable.
> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
>
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> >>
> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
>
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>
> > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrup
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>
>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> > Therefore we need a dedicated function t
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in
the > ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq is
more > obvious. On non-PPC archs it would translate to *_ir
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in
the > ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, b
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>
>> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
>>
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in
the > ISR. We could name it *_end_i
> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
>
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> >> > Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in
> >> the > ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> > Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in
>> the > ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq is
>> more > obvious. On non-PPC archs it would translate to *_irq_enable.
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in the
> ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq is more
> obvious. On non-PPC archs it would translate to *_irq_enable. I
> realized, that *_irq_enab
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in the
> ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq is more
> obvious. On non-PPC archs it would translate to *_irq_enable. I
> realized, that *_irq_enab
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in the
> ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq is more
> obvious. On non-PPC archs it would translate to *_irq_enable. I
> realized, that *_irq_enab
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in the
> ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq is more
> obvious. On non-PPC archs it would translate to *_irq_enable. I
> realized, that *_irq_enab
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in the
> ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq is more
> obvious. On non-PPC archs it would translate to *_irq_enable. I
> realized, that *_irq_enab
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in the
> ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq is more
> obvious. On non-PPC archs it would translate to *_irq_enable. I
> realized, that *_irq_enable is used in various place/sk
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Hello,
>
> with RTnet over Xenomai and Linux 2.4 on PowerPC I realized that Xenomai
> does not distinguish between a normal IRQ enable and an IRQ unmask at
> the end of an ISR (to reenable the IRQ). In the latter case the IRQ
> sh
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Hello,
>
> with RTnet over Xenomai and Linux 2.4 on PowerPC I realized that Xenomai
> does not distinguish between a normal IRQ enable and an IRQ unmask at
> the end of an ISR (to reenable the IRQ). In the latter case the IRQ
> should be enabled on PowerPC as
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in the
> ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq is more
> obvious. On non-PPC archs it would translate to *_irq_enable. I
> realized, that *_irq_enab
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in the
> ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq is more
> obvious. On non-PPC archs it would translate to *_irq_enable. I
> realized, that *_irq_enable is used in various place/sk
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Hello,
>
> with RTnet over Xenomai and Linux 2.4 on PowerPC I realized that Xenomai
> does not distinguish between a normal IRQ enable and an IRQ unmask at
> the end of an ISR (to reenable the IRQ). In the latter case the IRQ
> sh
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Hello,
>
> with RTnet over Xenomai and Linux 2.4 on PowerPC I realized that Xenomai
> does not distinguish between a normal IRQ enable and an IRQ unmask at
> the end of an ISR (to reenable the IRQ). In the latter case the IRQ
> should be enabled on PowerPC as
30 matches
Mail list logo