![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 18:34 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 17:53 -0400, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 10:37:01AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > Couldn't it be possible to have the misrouted irq function mark the > > > DISABLED_IRQ handlers as IRQ_PENDING? Then have the enable_irq that > > > actually enables the irq to call the handlers with interrupts disabled > > > if the IRQ_PENDING is set? > > > > We still have the ambiguity with disable_irq. Really we need to have > > disable_irq_handler(irq, handler) > > Yeah, that does make sense, but I think the IRQ_PENDING idea works too. > This way disable_irq_handler doesn't need to mask the interrupt even > without the irqpoll and irqfixup. Let the interrupt happen and just > skip those handlers that that are disabled. Then when the handler is > re-enabled, then we can call the handler. Of course we would need a > enable_irq_handler too. > > This would make the vortex card's disable_irq not hurt all the other > devices that share the irq with it. can't do that; if you get an irq anyway from the hardware you now have a screamer...... which is why vortex really needs to disable the irq at the hardware level. - 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: 2006-06-04 11:36 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||