[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: IPLs - One too many?
Toru Nishimura wrote:
> Chris Gilbert said;
>> Currently all interrupts are routed to IRQ, and we have to handle nested
>> interrupts, so we don't block clock irqs, masking and unmasking things
>> in the PIC, all of which is added complexity and overhead.
>> If we only need interrupts at two levels, and the hardware supports it,
>> we can handle all the interrupt priorities in the hardware, and bypass
>> quite a bit of code (and hopefully give a performance gain)
> In my understanding different and incompatible rework efforts have been
> made for NetBSD/arm interrupt foundation. Given this statements can
> I expect those will get settled down in a single and coherent shape which
> is able to adapt many ARMs?
Probably end up with two. One traditional type that has to nest
interrupts (eg for iomd based systems) and one for routable IRQ/FIQ lines.
Although I think it should be possible to use a common API for both
types, so we still get a common core piece of PIC handling code.
Main Index |
Thread Index |