Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > On 31/01/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> the previous version contained an ugly bug, namely the misuse of the >>> test_and_set/clear_bit interface >>> that led to a broken system from time to time. >>> >> What about the ISA/edge-triggered stuff? :D >> >> My problem is that we cannot test here on real hardware because all our >> shared IRQs reside on PC104 cards. > > > Could you provide me with some real piece of such code as an example?
May I remind you of the link to the linux kernel's 8250 driver I gave? Or what do you mean with real code? xeno_16550A would become such a user ideally only by adding one or two IRQ-registration flags. > > Anyway, design-wise, it's about introducing a separate xnintr_handler() for > such a special case to avoid getting a mixture with the rest of "sane" code. Yep, I would vote for this approach as well. > I mean that the support of shared interrupts for ISA boards (edge-triggered > stuff) is a kind of emulation to overcome the shortcommings of the initial > design on the hardware level. The hardware was just not supposed to support > shared interrupt channels. So, let's keep it a bit aside from another code > :o) Unfortunately, this crappy hardware is still quite common in the embedded domain. > > xnintr_attach() will check for a special flag like XN_ISR_ISASHARED and > attach e.g. xnintr_isairq_handler() instead of xnintr_irq_handler(). > > I'll post an extension to the rt_intr_create(..., const char *name, ...) > tomorrow - made but not tested yet - > > as well as the /proc support. > This should be easy... Great! Jan _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaiemail@example.com https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core