[okl4-developer] OKL4 v2.1: Behaviour of the CONTINUATION macros/scheme

[Ashish Bijlani]

Hi Frank,

You can look at "arch/ia32/pistachio/cpu/idt/src/intctrl-pic.cc" the
master.ack/slave.ack func sends platform (8259) specific EOI. Hope it
helps. Lemme know if I'm missing something.

-a

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:00 AM, Frank Kaiser
<frank.kaiser at opensynergy.com> wrote:
> Hello, Ashish
>
> Theoretically that might be possible for interrupts installed by the
> user, but due to the asynchronous IPC signalling of interrupts a call to
> 'config_interrupts()' would not be in the scope of the interrupt service
> routine. And it won't work for interupts handled by the kernel. The EOI
> signal has to be given at the end of the ISR, before control is returned
> to normal program execution.
>
> Thanks for your help attempt
> Frank
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ashish Bijlani [mailto:ashish.bijlani at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:24 AM
>> To: Frank Kaiser
>> Cc: developer at okl4.org
>> Subject: Re: [okl4-developer] OKL4 v2.1: Behaviour of the CONTINUATION
>> macros/scheme
>>
>> Can't you do it in config_interrupt function under ack_wait/ack
> condition?
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Frank Kaiser
>> <frank.kaiser at opensynergy.com> wrote:
>> > Hello
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have a difficulty with the interrupt handling of the ARM platform.
> The
>> > central interrupt hamdler Platform::handle_interrupt() uses the
> CONTINUATION
>> > scheme in a way that it expects all called subhandlers to return to
> the
>> > place in 'traps.spp' from where it has been called. The problem is
> that the
>> > interrupt controller of my ATMEL AT91SAM9263 platform requires a
> specific
>> > end-of-interrupt operation before the interrupt context is left.
> Since this
>> > is platform-specific, I don't want to do this in 'traps.spp',
> because this
>> > file is platform-independent (i. e. it is generic for ARMv5). So I
> prefer to
>> > place the EOI operation in the platform specific 'interrupt.cc' and
> make the
>> > subhandlers call it before control returns to 'traps.spp'. I have
> already
>> > seen that one can declare his own CONTINUATION_FUNCTION(), and there
> is a
>> > function call_with_asm_continuation(), which seems to make the
> function
>> > given as 4th parameter to return to the function given as 3rd
> parameter, but
>> > it does not look as if this fully satisfies what is required for the
>> > interrupt handler call chain.
>> >
>> > Any hint to solve my problem would be appreciated.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Frank
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Developer mailing list
>> > Developer at okl4.org
>> > https://lists.okl4.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
>> >
>> >
>