![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 11:01 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > so the question is not 'is there an ACK' (all non-MSI-type-of IRQ > delivery mechanisms have some sort of ACK mechanism), but what is the > precise structure of ACK-ing an IRQ that the host recieves. > > on PPC64, 'get the vector' initiates an ACK as well - is that done > before handle_irq() is done? Yes. > > So by doing a mask followed by an eoi, you essentially mask the > > interrupt preventing further delivery of that interrupt and lower the > > CPU priority in the PIC thus allowing processing of further > > interrupts.> > correct, that's what should happen.> > > Are there other fasteoi controllers than the ones I have on powerpc > > anyway ?> > well, if you mean the x86 APICs, there you get the vector 'for free' as > part of the IRQ entry call sequence, and there's an EOI register in the > local APIC that notifies the IRQ hardware, lowers the CPU priority, etc. > We have that as an ->eoi handler right now. Ok, so that's like me. Which means that what you need is a specific thre aded_fasteoi flow handler that does mask & eoi, not ack. Note that I still think it would work in the absence of mask too if the controller only does edge interrupts, as it is the case for the cell. Cheers, Ben. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-11-20 20:09 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||