Hi all, in an earlier thread on I-pipe for 2.6.19-ppc from Xenomai-core, Wolfgang remarked: >>> Unfortunately, "generic" applies only to the Linux part. I >>> realized, that the new IPIPE support for the genirqs requires >>> even more arch-specific modifications than the old interface :-( >>> on PowerPC. >> >> How comes? I haven't found time to analyse this for the latest x86 >> patch, but there it should be "more generic" than before. Do you >> think this is a genirq issue or an I-pipe problem? > > Well, it's nothing serious and we should discuss this issue in a > separated thread. I just wanted to have a closer look to the new port > before asking. At a first glance I saw that the irq_chip structure > has two new elements, ipipe_ack and ipipe_eoi. This requires patching > of every PIC interface. There are a few for x86 but plenty for > PowerPC. Philippe, is this really necessary? I would prefer the old > style using "#ifndef CONFIG_IPIPE" around the "chip->ack" in common > code.
I had a look at the related part in 2.6.19-i386-1.6-01 meanwhile, and there seems to be a concise pattern for the irq_chip changes: .ipipe_ack = (.mask_ack) ? .mask_ack : .ack; .ipipe_eoi = .eoi; I agree with Wolfgang, these changes indeed require a lot of patching already on x86 because often two versions of the irq_chip definition have to be provided (and there is the risk to miss one as it currently seems to be the case in visws_apic.c). I must confess that I do not see the advantage of the approach to patch the irq_chip definitions directly. Rather, one of the following ways should scale better over a large number of irq_chips: A) Perform patching during runtime when I-pipe is taking over the IRQs. Should be a trivial loop over all IRQ descriptors. Either overwrite the existing irq_chips (i.e. like sketched above) or provide new pseudo irq_chip structures to Linux. B) Patch the users of chip->ack/eoi/mask_ack or whatever. Given that this should basically be confined to kernel/irq/chip.c, it looks manageable too and would also avoid any useless runtime checks for NULL handlers or even calling void functions. Another topic is how to deal with pending IRQs. I haven't looked through all cases yet, but already the fasteoi one seems to differ in I-pipe when comparing to a similar situation in -rt: threaded IRQs. -rt ends (eoi) and masks such IRQs that are about to be deferred to thread context, I-pipe only ends them. Generally, the question remains for me if at least IRQs arriving to a stalled I-pipe domain should always be masked on ack and unmask when being replayed. Jan
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaifirstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core