On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 04:31:03PM +0400, Valentine Barshak wrote: [snip] > >> Ok, here's a patch which fixes up the flow handling on the UIC. It > >> needs some polish yet, but should be ok to test. Valentine, can you > >> test this on your setup, *without* your original proposed patch. > >> Eventually, for robustness, we'll want something like your original > >> patch as well for robustness, but in the meantime leaving it out > >> should tell us if my patch is actually having the intended effect. > > > > Valentine, it would be really helpful if you could test this on the > > problem you observed with the cascade interrupt. Any word on this? > > > > Thanks David, > the patch works fine here (without the original one).
Ok, great. > Don't think we really need a "fastcall" here on a powerpc though. Oh, yeah, that's just copied from the generic handle_level_irq(). > The original patch also fixes a minor issue with /proc/interrupts > (the the "if (trigger)" stuff). > Currently level-triggered interrupts are displayed as edge-triggered > ones and vice versa. Yes, we'll still want two patches similar to your original: one to fix the cosmetic /proc/interrupts problem, the other to make the cascade handler more robust against spurious interrupts. I just wanted to see if this flow handler change fixed the basic problem. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev