On 08/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyway, I agree that the code which is supposed to be used by only a fraction of users (Jan is only interested so far? and esp. in that "brain-damaged" edge-triggered stuff) and which is a bit too heavy to guarantee a close-to-zero-overhead should be made optional.
Ok, let's go for it upon getting the test results.
Enclosed a small optimization to reduce the code in (optional in future) ISR.
> I still prefer configuration options as they also allow to reduce the
> overall code size (less cache refills and TLB misses). And shared
> interrupts are for x86 only (approximately), I think. Unfortunately, I
Ok, that's a good argument. Then make the whole IRQ-sharing stuff
compile-time configurable and see how much we can save.
Anyway, I agree that the code which is supposed to be used by only a fraction of users (Jan is only interested so far? and esp. in that "brain-damaged" edge-triggered stuff) and which is a bit too heavy to guarantee a close-to-zero-overhead should be made optional.
Ok, let's go for it upon getting the test results.
Enclosed a small optimization to reduce the code in (optional in future) ISR.
Jan
--
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
shirq-v9.patch
Description: Binary data
