In message <20020620214551.GI16052 at opus.bloom.county> you wrote: > > > Isn't this more or less the same idea as presented by Wolfgang > > Grandegger more than half a year ago? See > > Pretty similar, yeap. > > > By then there was a common agreement that it was a bad idea from the > > beginning (although we need and use it for RTAI anyway). > > Well, Dan Malek didn't like it (and he doesn't like it again either). > When you did this for RTAI, I assume (since I didn't look at the patch)
Grrrgh.. Why do we send a patch, when you don't even look at it? > that in the end it was so RTAI wouldn't have to special-case 8xx things > in the common code (ie request_irq() or cpm_install_handler()) ? No. It's needed because otherwise you cannot register a RT handler for CPM interrupts. > > It's amusing to see how ideas get recycled again and again. > > heh. Well, actually my amusement is limited. This whole business how some patches make it or don't make it into some kernel tree is higly frustrating. Wolfgang Denk -- Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd at denx.de Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left. ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
