[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071128230331.GA31730@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:03:32 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>, Remy Bohmer <linux@...mer.net>,
RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ARM Linux Mailing List
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH PREEMPT_RT]: On AT91 ARM: GPIO Interrupt handling can/will stall forever
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 04:13:07PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> >
> > Ignoring the ARM side of things for a sec, handle_simple_irq() will
> > mask() the interrupt in the special case that an interrupt is already in
> > the processes of being handled.. handle_simple_irq() also unmasks when
> > it finishes handling an interrupt (something real time adds for some
> > reason) ..
> >
> > In terms of threading the irq everything is the same except there is no
> > unmask() call when the thread finishes ..
> >
>
> OK, to be honest, I never fully understood the concept of this
> "simple_irq". I figured it was because of the ARM architecture.
If you read what I said compared with what Daniel said, you'll see that
adding the mask/unmask is _pointless_ because for the case where the
simple handler should be used, there is _no_ hardware masking available
except via the parent interrupt signal.
So actually Daniel's argument misses the basic point - that using
handle_simple_irq for non-simple IRQs is just WRONG.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists