On Saturday April 8, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 14:10 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> >
> > To explain what I think is happening, let me start with a very simple
> > case. A number of PCI devices (this one included) have a number of
> > events which can trigger an interrupt. The events which are current
> > are presented as bits in a register, and are ORed together (and
> > possibly masked by another register) to make the IRQ line.
> > When 1's are written to any bits in this register, it acknowledges
> > the event and clears the bit.
> > A typical code fragment is
> > events = read_register(INTERRUPTS);
> > write_register(INTERRUPTS, events);
> > ... handle each 1 bits in events ....
> >
>
> Isn't a more typical IRQ handler:
>
> while (events = read_register(INTERRUPTS) != 0) {
> ...handle each bit in events and ACK it...
> }
Maybe... I admit that I generalised from 2 examples: rt2500 and yenta.
However I don't think it makes a big difference to the problem with
shared interrupts (assuming my analysis is right).
The loop isn't really necessary if you are sure that unserviced
interrupts will be re-asserted (as level-triggered interrupts would
be) (though it may still help performance) and the loop isn't
sufficient if you need to be sure that all events get services (as
there may be more in the shared-chain).
Thanks,
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
