From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <43675780.1050100@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:54:40 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [RFC] support for sharing IRQs References: <4367543F.9050700@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <4367543F.9050700@domain.hid> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig05530AAF51EC03B89B1999DE" List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Philippe Gerum Cc: xenomai-core This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig05530AAF51EC03B89B1999DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Philippe Gerum wrote: > Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >> Hi Jan, >> >> > >> > I have some code hanging around here which implements IRQ sharing a= t >> > skin level for an experimental in-house development over Xenomai. T= he >> > code is smart enough to register an IRQ sharing trampoline handler >> only >> > in case sharing is actually practiced for a specific line. >> >> Could you be a bit more specific on what is meant by "...sharing is >> actually practiced for a specific line"? >> >> To my knowledge, the matter is only about whether a certain device >> (driver) permits the earlier obtained irq line to be shared with other= >> devices. >> i.e. a driver [1] may succeed with an irq registration request in case= >> another driver [2] already holds this line but both [1] and [2] have >> specified a SA_SHIRQ flag. >> >> >> > I think it would be possible to break this out and generate a mainl= ine >> > patch. Anyway, the question for me is where to put this best, at sk= in >> > (RTDM?) or at nucleus level? Both is technically feasible, but >> which way >> > is desired? (I would vote for the nucleus...) >> >> If we have a policy that all the drivers should be implemented on top >> of RTDM, then, it can be done there. If no (and I guess so), this >> feature should be common and I'd vote for the nucleus. >=20 > Actually, now that we have a decent driver model built in, I will > enforce the rule that all Xenomai mainline drivers must be based on > RTDM, because we do need such a common platform to prevent braindamage > calling interfaces hysteria. This will be a good opportunity to see how= > flexible the thing is when confronted to the needs of various hw and > semantics. >=20 So far the rtdm_irq_xxx API consists of pure static inlines. If we decide to move IRQ sharing support only into that layer, it would materialise into real code and another trampoline. So, I still vote for a generic support at nucleus level. :) Jan --------------enig05530AAF51EC03B89B1999DE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDZ1eAncNeS9Q0k+IRAlolAJ0aR31IfCZLO6AjnAGlmLalv8idHACfbhW1 yfxsaWYMkqCWz6INCJIumoY= =XXYz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig05530AAF51EC03B89B1999DE--