From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <43E99D2F.6040609@domain.hid> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 08:26:39 +0100 From: Wolfgang Grandegger MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [Combo-PATCH] Shared interrupts (final) References: <43E86F4D.4050400@domain.hid> <43E8DFC4.4010805@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <43E8DFC4.4010805@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org Jan Kiszka wrote: > Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> this is the final set of patches against the SVN trunk of 2006-02-03. >>> >>> It addresses mostly remarks concerning naming (XN_ISR_ISA -> >>> XN_ISR_EDGE), a few cleanups and updated comments. >>> >>> Functionally, the support for shared interrupts (a few flags) to the > > Not directly your fault: the increasing number of return flags for IRQ > handlers makes me worry that they are used correctly. I can figure out > what they mean (not yet that clearly from the docs), but does someone > else understand all this: > > - RT_INTR_HANDLED > - RT_INTR_CHAINED > - RT_INTR_ENABLE > - RT_INTR_NOINT > > or > > - RTDM_IRQ_PROPAGATE > - RTDM_IRQ_ENABLE > - RTDM_IRQ_NOINT > > Third-party comments / suggestions welcome as well. Maybe I'm too > pessimistic. > >>> rtdm (Jan's patch) and native skin. >>> In the later case, rt_intr_create() now contains the 6-th argument, >>> namely "int mode". >>> >>> Now I'm waiting for the test results from Jan (the previous patch-set >>> remains to be suitable for testing too in case you are using it >>> already). Upon success, the new code is ready for merging. > > Trying to manage the priority list of someone else is tricky - I hope we > can see something soon, but I cannot promise anything. > >>> the patches have to be applied as follows : >>> - shirq-base >>> - shirq-v8 >>> - shirq-proc >>> - shirq-edge >>> - shirq-ext >>> >>> Happy testing ! :) >> My concern is code size. I see that the patches add substantial amount >> of code to the ISR. What about make this feature configurable? >> > > I would vote for the (already scheduled?) extension to register an > optimised IRQ trampoline in case there is actually no sharing taking > place. This would also make the "if (irq == XNARCH_TIMER_IRQ)" path > obsolete. I still prefer configuration options as they also allow to reduce the overall code size (less cache refills and TLB misses). And shared interrupts are for x86 only (approximately), I think. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to follow all the details of the rapid Xenomai development and can't therefore judge what is really necessary. Wolfgang. > Jan >