From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:33:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from h155.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:57568 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20038419AbWLAPdV (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:33:21 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.248] (unknown [10.150.0.9]) by imap.sh.mvista.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D8C43ECA; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 07:33:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <45704B9D.5090805@ru.mvista.com> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:34:53 +0300 From: Sergei Shtylyov Organization: MontaVista Software Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: ru, en-us, en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Atsushi Nemoto Cc: vagabon.xyz@gmail.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: Is _do_IRQ() not needed anymore ? References: <20061201.191049.63741937.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> <45704569.8000807@ru.mvista.com> <20061202.002214.51866784.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <45704A4D.9050303@ru.mvista.com> In-Reply-To: <45704A4D.9050303@ru.mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 13305 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Hello. Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >>>> You can use both irq_cpu and i8259 same time. :) >>> What's wrong with 8259 I wonder? It's happily converted to genirq >>> by other arches... >> Indeed. I missed other arch's i8259.c had changed. Maybe we should >> update i8259.c entirely. > The question is what flow to use: level/edge ones used in x86 code > and actually intended for simplistic controllers, not the likes of 8259 > OR the "fasteoi" one used in PowerPC code and (as it turned out in my Sorry for some confusion: in arch/powerpc/ level flow is always used for 8259 code (just because it fits both leve and edge cases)... > earlier discussion in linuxppc-dev) intended for the controllers that > are smart enough to mask off the lower-priority IRQs when getting the > top level one acknowledged and unmask them upon EOI command... However, Benjamin Herrenschmidt said that 8259 should have used fasteoi flow instead since it was intended for that exact type of controllers (he claimed to have proposed this flow initially). >> --- >> Atsushi Nemoto WBR, Sergei