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_enable is used in various place/skins and therefore > I have not yet provided a patch.

The function xnarch_irq_enable seems to be called in only two functions,
xintr_enable and xnintr_irq_handler when the flag XN_ISR_ENABLE is set.

In any case, since I am not sure if this has to be done at the Adeos
level or in Xenomai, we will wait for Philippe to come back and decide.

->enable() and ->end() all mixed up illustrates a silly x86 bias I once had. We do need to differentiate the mere enabling from the IRQ epilogue at PIC level since Linux does it - i.e. we don't want to change the semantics here.

I would go for adding xnarch_end_irq -> rthal_irq_end to stick with the Linux naming scheme, and have the proper epilogue done from there on a per-arch basis.

Current uses of xnarch_enable_irq() should be reserved to the non-epilogue case, like xnintr_enable() i.e. forcibly unmasking the IRQ source at PIC level outside of any ISR context for such interrupt (*). XN_ISR_ENABLE would trigger a call to xnarch_end_irq, instead of xnarch_enable_irq. I see no reason for this fix to leak to the Adeos layer, since the HAL already controls the way interrupts are ended actually; it just does it improperly on some platforms.

(*) Jan, does rtdm_irq_enable() have the same meaning, or is it intended to be used from the ISR too in order to revalidate the source at PIC level?



Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to