Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Jan Kiszka wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > Good point, leaves us with 2 possible return values for shared handlers: > > HANDLED > NOT_HANDLED > > i.e. shared handlers should never defer the end'ing of the interrupt (which > makes sense, since this would affect the

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Anders Blomdell wrote: > Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >> > Good point, leaves us with 2 possible return values for shared >> handlers: >> > >> > HANDLED >> > NOT_HANDLED >> > >> > i.e. shared handlers should never defer the end'ing of the >> interrupt (which >> > makes sense, since this wo

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > Good point, leaves us with 2 possible return values for shared handlers: > > HANDLED > NOT_HANDLED > > i.e. shared handlers should never defer the end'ing of the interrupt (which > makes sense, since this would affect the other [shared] handlers). HANDLED_

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

> Good point, leaves us with 2 possible return values for shared handlers: > >   HANDLED >   NOT_HANDLED > > i.e. shared handlers should never defer the end'ing of the interrupt (which > makes sense, since this would affect the other [shared] handlers). HANDLED_NOEBNABLE could be supported too.

Re: [Xenomai-core] Timer and calibration

ROSSIER Daniel wrote: Hi Philippe, I perfectly got the point that the pipeline is already up and running when calibrate_delay() is called. On our ARM board, the pipeline seems to work perfectly. I however misunderstands something. The ipipe configures the timer in one-shot mode when ipipe_ini

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Anders Blomdell wrote: > Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >> On 21/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > wrote: >> >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> > >> > N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared >> > interrupts. >> > >>

Re: [Xenomai-core] Timer and calibration

ROSSIER Daniel wrote: Hello, We are currently porting Adeos/Xenomai with Linux 2.6.14 on a ARM9-based Freescale i.mx21 (litekit) development board. We started from the available patch for the ARM-based Integrator board. We are now facing some interesting problems regarding clock/timer

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared interrupts. On 20/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: A number of questions arise: 1. What happens if one of the shared handlers leaves the inte

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: On 21/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > > N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared > interrupts. > > > On 20/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* < [E

[Xenomai-core] Timer and calibration

Hello,   We are currently porting Adeos/Xenomai with Linux 2.6.14 on a ARM9-based Freescale i.mx21 (litekit) development board. We started from the available patch for the ARM-based Integrator board.   We are now facing some interesting problems regarding clock/timer frequencies with t

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

On 21/02/06, Anders Blomdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote:>> N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared> interrupts.>>> On 20/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: A number of questions arise:> > 1. What hap

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

On 21/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote:> N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared> interrupts.>>> On 20/02/06, Anders Blomdell < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> A number of questions arise: 1. What happens if one of the shared handler

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Jan Kiszka wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > Good point, leaves us with 2 possible return values for shared handlers: > > HANDLED > NOT_HANDLED > > i.e. shared handlers should never defer the end'ing of the interrupt (which > makes sense, since this would affect the

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Anders Blomdell wrote: > Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >> > Good point, leaves us with 2 possible return values for shared >> handlers: >> > >> > HANDLED >> > NOT_HANDLED >> > >> > i.e. shared handlers should never defer the end'ing of the >> interrupt (which >> > makes sense, since this wo

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared > interrupts. > > > On 20/02/06, Anders Blomdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> A number of questions arise: >> >> 1. What happens if one of the shared handlers leaves the interrupt >> asserted, >

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Anders Blomdell wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Hi Dmitry, >> >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >>> Hi Jan, >>> >>> let's make yet another revision of the bits : >>> >>> new XN_ISR_HANDLED == old XN_ISR_HANDLED + old XN_ISR_NO_ENABLE >>> >>> ok. >>> >>> new XN_ISR_NOENABLE == ~ old XN_ISR_ENABLE >>> >>>

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > Good point, leaves us with 2 possible return values for shared handlers: > > HANDLED > NOT_HANDLED > > i.e. shared handlers should never defer the end'ing of the interrupt (which > makes sense, since this would affect the other [shared] handlers). HANDLED_

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

> Good point, leaves us with 2 possible return values for shared handlers: > >   HANDLED >   NOT_HANDLED > > i.e. shared handlers should never defer the end'ing of the interrupt (which > makes sense, since this would affect the other [shared] handlers). HANDLED_NOEBNABLE could be supported too.

Re: [Xenomai-core] Timer and calibration

ROSSIER Daniel wrote: Hi Philippe, I perfectly got the point that the pipeline is already up and running when calibrate_delay() is called. On our ARM board, the pipeline seems to work perfectly. I however misunderstands something. The ipipe configures the timer in one-shot mode when ipipe_ini

RE: [Xenomai-core] Timer and calibration

Hi Philippe, I perfectly got the point that the pipeline is already up and running when calibrate_delay() is called. On our ARM board, the pipeline seems to work perfectly. I however misunderstands something. The ipipe configures the timer in one-shot mode when ipipe_init is called, right? (al

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared interrupts. On 20/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: A number of questions arise: 1. What happens if one of the shared handlers leaves the inte

Re: [Xenomai-core] Timer and calibration

ROSSIER Daniel wrote: Hello, We are currently porting Adeos/Xenomai with Linux 2.6.14 on a ARM9-based Freescale i.mx21 (litekit) development board. We started from the available patch for the ARM-based Integrator board. We are now facing some interesting problems regarding clock/timer

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Anders Blomdell wrote: > Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >> On 21/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > wrote: >> >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> > >> > N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared >> > interrupts. >> > >>

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: On 21/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > > N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared > interrupts. > > > On 20/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* < [E

[Xenomai-core] Timer and calibration

Hello,   We are currently porting Adeos/Xenomai with Linux 2.6.14 on a ARM9-based Freescale i.mx21 (litekit) development board. We started from the available patch for the ARM-based Integrator board.   We are now facing some interesting problems regarding clock/timer frequencies with t

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

On 21/02/06, Anders Blomdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote:>> N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared> interrupts.>>> On 20/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: A number of questions arise:> > 1. What hap

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

On 21/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote:> N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared> interrupts.>>> On 20/02/06, Anders Blomdell < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> A number of questions arise: 1. What happens if one of the shared handler

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared > interrupts. > > > On 20/02/06, Anders Blomdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> A number of questions arise: >> >> 1. What happens if one of the shared handlers leaves the interrupt >> asserted, >

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Anders Blomdell wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Hi Dmitry, >> >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >>> Hi Jan, >>> >>> let's make yet another revision of the bits : >>> >>> new XN_ISR_HANDLED == old XN_ISR_HANDLED + old XN_ISR_NO_ENABLE >>> >>> ok. >>> >>> new XN_ISR_NOENABLE == ~ old XN_ISR_ENABLE >>> >>>