This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
RE: Interrupt arbitration on MPC555
- To: "Jesper Skov" <jskov at redhat dot com>
- Subject: RE: [ECOS] Interrupt arbitration on MPC555
- From: "Bob Koninckx" <bob dot koninckx at mech dot kuleuven dot ac dot be>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:26:40 +0100
- Cc: "ecos discussion forum" <ecos-discuss at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
- Reply-To: <bob dot koninckx at mech dot kuleuven dot ac dot be>
Sure, it makes sense. I specifically like the idea of enabling it only on
level 7.
Is this chaining mechanism documented ?? I didnt find it at first sight,
might have looked over it though.
Yet anoter question:
suppose all the above were available, who is responsible for setting up the
arbiters ?? I suppose it belongs in the device driver, right before creating
the interrupts, want to hear it from the specialist.
Thanks,
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ecos-discuss-owner@sourceware.cygnus.com
> [mailto:ecos-discuss-owner@sourceware.cygnus.com]On Behalf Of Jesper
> Skov
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 11:14 AM
> To: bob.koninckx@mech.kuleuven.ac.be
> Cc: ecos discussion forum
> Subject: RE: [ECOS] Interrupt arbitration on MPC555
>
>
> >>>>> "Bob" == Bob Koninckx <bob.koninckx@mech.kuleuven.ac.be> writes:
>
> Bob> The point I am trying to make is : if you write a general arbiter
> Bob> for toucan, tpu, mios, sci etc ..., these will only work fine for
> Bob> priorities lower than 7. If two devices are assigned priorities
> Bob> above 6, you should be able to connect more than one arbiter on
> Bob> level 7
>
> You should be to achieve this by enabling interrupt chaining -
> arbiters would be called in sequence and should Do The Right
> Thing(TM).
>
> I think it would probably impact performance a bit though (to enable
> global interrupt chaining). It might be desirable to add a (suitably
> hacked up) chaining-handler to level 7 and register the toucan, tpu,
> etc, with this chaining handler. It would call each of those arbiters
> in turn.
>
> Did that make any sense?
>
> Jesper
>