Hi Daniel - thanks for looking at this patch. I was actually planning to send it to David tonight. But after your comments I will wait. > I have begun too look at the patches, one thing that strikes me is > why handle_level_irq is used and why the ack functions irq_ack and > irq_mask_ack are not defined. The sun4m at least uses level triggered interrupts. And looking at the implmentation the enable() and disable() functions in all cases did a simple mask and unmask - also the leon variants. So based on this observation I decided to go got the handle_level_irq flow handler. From the implmentation in kernel/irq/ I could also see that handle_level_irq always called irq_mask() / irq_unmask() which was a match towoards to earlier implemtnation. On top of this - this just worked for my sun4m box. > On the LEON architecture IRQs are > normally edge triggered, the exception beeing PCI interrupts that is > level triggered. Implementing the ack functions in the current > implementation would result in acking edge triggered IRQs which means > IRQs may be lost (on the LEON at least)? I thought SUN SPARCs also have > edge triggered interrupts and that the CPU acks the IRQ automatically > when the trap is taken? > > What is the difference between having handle_level_irq without ACKs > implemented and having handle_edge_irq doing the interrupt flow > handling? Thomas? Can you help here? You are much more into these details than I am. Sam -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
