Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:19:21 +0100 | | From | Haavard Skinnemoen <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] atmel_serial: Split the interrupt handler |
| |
Crud...my mailer helpfully filtered this into the huge linux-kernel bin instead of leaving it in my inbox...
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:23:11 +0100 "Remy Bohmer" <linux@bohmer.net> wrote:
> Hello Haavard, > > A few remarks: > > > From: Remy Bohmer <hskinnemoen@atmel.com> > > My name, at your address ;-)))
Right. Wonder how that happened...I'll try to fix it manually before I send the next patchbomb.
> > This patch splits up the interrupt handler of the serial port > > into a interrupt top-half and a tasklet. > > I see you moved the handling of the sysrq-key to the tasklet. This was > actually a very nice feature in the IRQ-top half on preempt-RT. This > helps debugging running away RT-processes.
Ah. Good point. I guess we should move it back, then.
> > In this version of the patch, we try to only do things that are > > absolutely necessary in the interrupt handler, storing away the > > status register along with the received character and letting the > > tasklet handle break, sysrq, error flags, etc. > > Preempt-RT now absolutely requires my (4th) IRQ_NODELAY patch, because > the spinlock now is always inside the code, and not only in > theexception path, and thus without my NO_DELAY patch we have a panic > during boot. > On preempt-RT this spinlock must be a raw-spinlock. (If this type is > known in the mainline kernel, you can apply that patch it anyway)
I'll see if that works.
> BTW: Attached I have added a 2nd patch that I use for Preempt-RT. (For > cleaner startup, and to get rid of useless IRQ-threads.
Hrm. That assumption isn't valid on AVR32...on AP7000, for example, IRQ1 is used by the LCD controller.
> > This patch should apply on top of the cleanup patch I sent earlier > > For the cleanup patch: > Acked-by: Remy Bohmer <linux@bohmer.net> > > > today. Or at least I think so...I'll send the full series once > > everyone are happy. > > So, for this patch: I am almost happy ;-)
Great :-)
Haavard
|  |