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. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
