Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Hello, > > Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> this is the final set of patches against the SVN trunk of 2006-02-03. >> >> It addresses mostly remarks concerning naming (XN_ISR_ISA -> >> XN_ISR_EDGE), a few cleanups and updated comments. >> >> Functionally, the support for shared interrupts (a few flags) to the
Not directly your fault: the increasing number of return flags for IRQ handlers makes me worry that they are used correctly. I can figure out what they mean (not yet that clearly from the docs), but does someone else understand all this: - RT_INTR_HANDLED - RT_INTR_CHAINED - RT_INTR_ENABLE - RT_INTR_NOINT or - RTDM_IRQ_PROPAGATE - RTDM_IRQ_ENABLE - RTDM_IRQ_NOINT Third-party comments / suggestions welcome as well. Maybe I'm too pessimistic. >> rtdm (Jan's patch) and native skin. >> In the later case, rt_intr_create() now contains the 6-th argument, >> namely "int mode". >> >> Now I'm waiting for the test results from Jan (the previous patch-set >> remains to be suitable for testing too in case you are using it >> already). Upon success, the new code is ready for merging. Trying to manage the priority list of someone else is tricky - I hope we can see something soon, but I cannot promise anything. >> >> the patches have to be applied as follows : >> - shirq-base >> - shirq-v8 >> - shirq-proc >> - shirq-edge >> - shirq-ext >> >> Happy testing ! :) > > My concern is code size. I see that the patches add substantial amount > of code to the ISR. What about make this feature configurable? > I would vote for the (already scheduled?) extension to register an optimised IRQ trampoline in case there is actually no sharing taking place. This would also make the "if (irq == XNARCH_TIMER_IRQ)" path obsolete. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
