From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31973 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2012 09:54:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 31961 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Apr 2012 09:54:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from hagrid.ecoscentric.com (HELO mail.ecoscentric.com) (212.13.207.197) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:53:45 +0000 Received: by mail.ecoscentric.com (Postfix, from userid 48) id D2A562F78014; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:53:43 +0100 (BST) From: bugzilla-daemon@bugs.ecos.sourceware.org To: unassigned@bugs.ecos.sourceware.org Subject: [Bug 1001572] Separate FIQ and IRQ management X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: eCos X-Bugzilla-Component: HAL X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: nickg@ecoscentric.com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: low X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned@bugs.ecos.sourceware.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:54:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20120424095341.5CE0E2F78001@mail.ecoscentric.com> Mailing-List: contact ecos-bugs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-bugs-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012/txt/msg00819.txt.bz2 Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001572 --- Comment #3 from Nick Garnett 2012-04-24 10:53:38 BST --- (In reply to comment #2) > I notice that FUNC_START_ARM does not put the new functions in a different > section, so they won't be GC'd, so will be in all programs, whether used or > not. It looks like I was going to do something about this in the eCosCentric > sources, but then it seems I commented it out (changeset 371380826e8c). Hmm, > can't remember why now. That is true of a number of asm utility routines. Something for a different checkin to deal with. > Thanks for incorporating the fix from bug 1001160. Frankly, I had forgotten that was the source of that particular change. > But that bug also mentions a third possibility, that it might be useful for > some users to do their own FIQ handling (and not use the FIQ->IRQ kludge), but > for FIQs to still be disabled when handling IRQs. This can have benefits for > some people. In particular, you would no longer need a separate FIQ interrupt > stack, but could share one with IRQ again, which could be an important memory > saver. > > I think all it would need is one more CDL option controlling the CPSR_INTR_MASK > define, which CYGOPT_HAL_ARM_FIQ_DISABLE can use 'requires' on to set. And also > then that lets us avoid defining __fiq_stack in that case. Thoughts? I'm not convinced. It seems to be a rather nasty subversion of the way in which the architecture is intended to work. I suspect that the IRQ entry code would need to be rejigged a little to ensure there are no races. For now I think we want to check this in as it stands. If there is any demand for what you suggest above then it can be added at a later date. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.