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 *_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.

Ok, so no change would be needed here to implement what's described above.




Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to