On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 18:10 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Am 14.10.2010 17:42, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 15:23 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Philippe,
> >>
> >> irqbench does not inherently depend on a third I-pipe domain. It is a
> >> useful testcase, the only in our portfolio that targets a peripheral
> >> device use case. In fact, it was only of the first test cases for Native
> >>
> >> Please revert the removal and then cut out only the few parts that
> >> actually instantiate an additional domain (i.e. mode 3.
> > 
> > So, what do we do with this? Any chance we move to arch-neutral code for
> > this test?
> Arch-neutral is impossible due to the inherent hardware dependency. But
> I'm waiting on some comments by Wolfgang on their work as that's
> probably the best requirements source for multi-arch support.

I mean that the bulk of the code could be made arch-neutral, with only
callouts to solve the arch-dependent/uart issues. Typically, 16550's are
not uncommon on powerpc, but we obviously don't program them via
ioports. A second level of indirection could provide the entire chip
handling, to fit other uarts, maybe?

> For now the existing test should not cause any harm if cleaned up from
> the domain stuff and not built on non-x86 archs (which is already
> properly guarded for user space, the kernel driver may deserve an
> additional dependency).
> Jan


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to