[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/evbarm/iq80310
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 03:40:12AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > chs@ wrote:
> > > Module Name: src
> > > Committed By: chs
> > > Date: Tue Aug 14 15:46:21 UTC 2012
> > >
> > > Modified Files:
> > > src/sys/arch/evbarm/iq80310: iq80310_intr.c
> > >
> > > Log Message:
> > > move evcnt_attach_dynamic() calls later to avoid assertions.
> > - what happens if intr_establish function is called more than once
> > against the same irq?
> > - shouldn't disestablish function have evcnt_detach()?
> > - isn't it better to defer intr_init() calls after evcnt_init(),
> > rather than calling evcnt_attach_dynamic() in intr_establish() ?
> > It looks many other arm intr_init functions
> > (arm/ep93xx/ep93xx_intr.c, arm/xscale/ixp425_intr.c etc)
> > have the same problem, though.
> > (on the other hand marvell variants don't have evcnt at all)
> are you suggesting to undo my change and instead move the call to
> iq80310_intr_init() from initarm() to somewhere else? if so, where?
> or are you suggesting to move the calls to evcnt_attach_dynamic()
> from iq80310_intr_init() to a separate function which could be called
> later? if so, where would be a good place to call that other function?
The former is okay because interrupts won't be enabled before
at least cpu_configure(9) and I moved such initializations
into cpu_configure(9) on several mips and m68k ports.
But on evbarm cpu_configure(9) is shared among all boards
so we need some hook to handle it? Or call it mainbus_attach()?
Or just disable intr evcnt(9) for now?
Main Index |
Thread Index |