> 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:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> If this is a valid use-case, it should be really straightforward to add
> >> this abstraction to RTDM. We should just document that rtdm_irq_end()
> >> shall not be invoked from IRQ context -
> > 
> > It's the other way around: ->end() would indeed be called from the ISR
> > epilogue, and ->enable() would not.
> 
> I think we are talking about different things: Wolfgang was asking for
> an equivalent of RTDM_IRQ_ENABLE outside the IRQ handler. That's the
> user API. You are now referring to the back-end which had to provide
> some end-mechanism to be used both by the nucleus' ISR epilogue and that
> rtdm_irq_end(), and that mechanism shall be told apart from the IRQ
> enable/disable API. Well, that's at least how I think to have got it...

Yep, I was thinking of deferred interrupt handling in a real-time task.
Then rtdm_irq_end() would be required.
 
> > 
> >  to avoid breaking the chain in
> >> the shared-IRQ scenario. RTDM_IRQ_ENABLE must remain the way to
> >> re-enable the line from the handler.
> >>
> >> Jan
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> 

Wolfgang.

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

Reply via email to