This is the mail archive of the
ecos-bugs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the eCos project.
[Bug 1001572] Separate FIQ and IRQ management
- From: bugzilla-daemon at bugs dot ecos dot sourceware dot org
- To: ecos-bugs at ecos dot sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:38:28 +0100
- Subject: [Bug 1001572] Separate FIQ and IRQ management
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-1001572-13@http.bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/>
Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001572
Jonathan Larmour <jifl@ecoscentric.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jifl@ecoscentric.com
Blocks| |1001160
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Larmour <jifl@ecoscentric.com> 2012-04-23 20:38:25 BST ---
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.
Thanks for incorporating the fix from bug 1001160.
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?
Jifl
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.