> 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 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?
> > 
> 
> Nope, rtdm_irq_enable() was never intended to re-enable an IRQ line
> after an interrupt, and the documentation does not suggest this either.
> I see no problem here.

But RTDM needs a rtdm_irq_end() functions as well in case the
user wants to reenable the interrupt outside the ISR, I think.

Wolfgang.


_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core

Reply via email to