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 - 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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to