On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:49:33AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > Generally speaking the motivation is to make the ColdFire interrupt > support fit into the kernel model. Specifically this means the ability > to mask/unmask/ack interrupts directly from the kernels arch independent > interrupt code. Currently in ColdFire land we unmask interrupts in > pretty much an ad-hoc fashion as required. And for those interrupts > that need ack'ing we do that with hacks in drivers and the like. > I want to clean this up and make it all work "properly". > > Unfortunately it is not as simple as it sounds. There is quite a few > differences in the interrupt controllers used across the various > ColdFire parts now. The modern parts are strait forward, the older > parts are taking a little more effort. It all seems to be falling > out nicely overall though. > > In terms of external differences you may not see too much on the > 5271. Internally it means I can simplify the interrupt setup for > the internal devices (timers, UARTs, FEC, etc). > > On cores that support external interrupts it meands getting > drivers going is a much simpler task.
Sounds excellent. I like consistency. Looking at the git tree, it certainly looks like not too much new code, and a lot of cleanup of old hacks. Nice. -- Len Sorensen _______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by [email protected] To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
