8260 MCC Interrupt priority

8260 MCC Interrupt priority

[Ing.Gianfranco Morandi]

Hi to everybody,

I'm currently working on a custom board derived from EST8260. We are trying
to implement a device driver of MCC to control the interface with a
synchrounous PCM.
I have noted that when there is an interrupt on SCC1 (or FCCx) the latency
time of MCC interrupt increase. Now I'm really concerned about the
possibility to loose some frame due to an heavy use of such interfaces.

Do anybody knows if there is the possibility to avoid such behaviour (maybe
allowing an interrupt casting with the MCC ISR)?

Many thanks

Gianfranco Morandi


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: 8260 MCC Interrupt priority

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Gianfranco,

in message <020c01c25820$89c23880$0700a8c0@pc005> you wrote:
>
> I'm currently working on a custom board derived from EST8260. We are trying
> to implement a device driver of MCC to control the interface with a
> synchrounous PCM.
> I have noted that when there is an interrupt on SCC1 (or FCCx) the latency
> time of MCC interrupt increase. Now I'm really concerned about the
> possibility to loose some frame due to an heavy use of such interfaces.

If losing a frame is _that_ critical to you yoy should consider using
RTAI.

> Do anybody knows if there is the possibility to avoid such behaviour (maybe
> allowing an interrupt casting with the MCC ISR)?

With RTAI you can register the MCC as a real-time interrupt which has
higher priority than all Linux stuff, guaranteed.

See http://www.rtai.org/ , and feel free to contact me when you  need
help.

Wolfgang Denk

--
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd@denx.de
The software required `Windows 95 or better', so I installed Linux.

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: 8260 MCC Interrupt priority

[Ing.Gianfranco Morandi]

Many thanks for your suggestion, I have checked the references You gave me
and I believe that RTAI would be a good solution to solve our problem.
Actually I'm working with a quite old version of HardHat package (CDK 1.2
with 2.4.0-test2 kernel) with some minor patches in order to have the
ethernet 100% functionality, do You think we can easily port the RTAI on
this version or shall we migrate to HardHat 2.0?

Gianfranco

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wolfgang Denk" <wd@denx.de>
To: "Ing.Gianfranco Morandi" <gianfranco.morandi@euro-studio.it>
Cc: "LinuxPPC" <linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: 8260 MCC Interrupt priority


> Dear Gianfranco,
>
> in message <020c01c25820$89c23880$0700a8c0@pc005> you wrote:
> >
> > I'm currently working on a custom board derived from EST8260. We are
trying
> > to implement a device driver of MCC to control the interface with a
> > synchrounous PCM.
> > I have noted that when there is an interrupt on SCC1 (or FCCx) the
latency
> > time of MCC interrupt increase. Now I'm really concerned about the
> > possibility to loose some frame due to an heavy use of such interfaces.
>
> If losing a frame is _that_ critical to you yoy should consider using
> RTAI.
>
> > Do anybody knows if there is the possibility to avoid such behaviour
(maybe
> > allowing an interrupt casting with the MCC ISR)?
>
> With RTAI you can register the MCC as a real-time interrupt which has
> higher priority than all Linux stuff, guaranteed.
>
> See http://www.rtai.org/ , and feel free to contact me when you  need
> help.
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
> --
> Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
> Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd@denx.de
> The software required `Windows 95 or better', so I installed Linux.


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: 8260 MCC Interrupt priority

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Gianfranco,

in message <000701c258eb$9092e4e0$0700a8c0@pc005> you wrote:
>
> Many thanks for your suggestion, I have checked the references You gave me
> and I believe that RTAI would be a good solution to solve our problem.
> Actually I'm working with a quite old version of HardHat package (CDK 1.2
> with 2.4.0-test2 kernel) with some minor patches in order to have the
> ethernet 100% functionality, do You think we can easily port the RTAI on
> this version or shall we migrate to HardHat 2.0?

You will run into problems with a 2.4.0 kernel.  But  that  does  not
mean  that  you  have  to  use HHL 2.0. The kernel source tree is one
thing, the (cross) development toolchain is a  different  issue,  and
the  native  tools  used for the target is yet another story. OK, the
(cross) development toolchain and the native  tools  are  related  in
some  ways  -  at  least  they should use the same versions of shared
libraries, etc.

But you can easily  use  a  more  recent  kernel  source  tree  while
continuing  to use the your current tools - if there is nother reason
to change.

Wolfgang Denk

--
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd@denx.de
They weren't that important. They were merely at the top. The  people
who  really  run organizations are usually found several levels down,
where it's still possible to get things done.
                                      - Terry Pratchett, _Small Gods_

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: 8260 MCC Interrupt priority

[Dan Brennan]

Which silicon version are you using, e.g., B.3? Read the errata for the
part. Activity on FCC1 can wreak havoc on a very busy MCC.

"Ing.Gianfranco Morandi" wrote:
>
> Hi to everybody,
>
> I'm currently working on a custom board derived from EST8260. We are trying
> to implement a device driver of MCC to control the interface with a
> synchrounous PCM.
> I have noted that when there is an interrupt on SCC1 (or FCCx) the latency
> time of MCC interrupt increase. Now I'm really concerned about the
> possibility to loose some frame due to an heavy use of such interfaces.
>
> Do anybody knows if there is the possibility to avoid such behaviour (maybe
> allowing an interrupt casting with the MCC ISR)?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Gianfranco Morandi
>

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/