On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 14:20 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 10:20 +0200, M. Koehrer wrote:
> > Hi Jan,
> >
> > o.k., now I understand Philippes patch.
> > However, at one point, I am not quite sure if this is correct:
> > Within __ipipe_handle_irq()
> > the patch adds
> > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC
> > {
> > unsigned vector = irq + FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR;
> > if (vector >= FIRST_SYSTEM_VECTOR)
> > irq = ipipe_apic_vector_irq(vector);
> > }
> > #endif
> > I do not understand the if (vector >= ..) statement.
> > When I am at this point, the irq value is always the vector and never an
> > irq.
>
> No, the trampoline code in entry.S passes us an irq actually. But there
> is indeed a vector:irq mapping issue with IRQ numbers greater than 206,
> which still badly conflict with system IRQs (MSI causes high numbered
> IRQs to be allocated). I'm working on a patch. More later.
>
Does this patch improve things?
http://download.gna.org/adeos/patches/v2.6/i386/adeos-ipipe-2.6.20-i386-1.8-00.patch
--
Philippe.
_______________________________________________
Xenomai-help mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
