Re: Why no interrupt priorities?

[Michael Frank]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:50:19 +0000, Russell King <rmk+lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 09:31:43PM +0800, Michael Frank wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:05:48 +0000, Russell King <rmk+lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 02:26:31PM +0800, Michael Frank wrote:
> > >> Is this to imply that edge triggered shared interrupts are used anywhere?
> > >
> > > It is (or used to be) rather common with serial ports.  Remember that
> > > COM1 and COM3 were both defined to use IRQ4 and COM2 and COM4 to use
> > > IRQ3.
> > >
> > >> Never occured to me to use shared IRQ's edge triggered as this mode
> > >> _cannot_ work reliably for HW limitations.
> > >
> > > The serial driver takes great care with this - when we service such an
> > > interrupt, we keep going until we have scanned all the devices until
> > > such time that we can say "all devices are no longer signalling an
> > > interrupt".
> > >
> > > This is something it has always done - it's nothing new.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, i think the serial driver IRQ is level triggered :)
>
> That's actually incorrect.  Serial devices are (were) connected to the
> old ISA PICs which are definitely edge triggered.

I was under the impression that the PIC's are historically set to
level triggered, certainly was the case with (IBM) PC's/AT's and
with embedded system I am working with.

At least it explains why I was never able to share IRQ's on hardware
with PIC's under linux.

Regards
Michael




-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/