From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: New consolidate irqs vs . probe_irq_*()
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:20:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041020092017.GA28054@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1098262403.6278.16.camel@gaston>
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 18:48, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > yeah. I've put it into a separate autoprobe.c file specifically for that
> > reason, you can exclude it in the Makefile and can provide your own
> > architecture version. Or should we make the no-autoprobing choice
> > generic perhaps?
>
> I like this later option... How may archs actually had autoprobing
> implemented and actually used ?
>
> Well, I'll do some grep'ing around tonight as I do the NO_IRQ stuff
> and see what makes more sense. I don't think an arch that didn't have
> autoprobing needs it now, besides, it's not exactly a reliable
> mecanism...
btw., auto-detection of interrupt sources is not _necessarily_ broken.
Especially with level-triggered interrupts (where no active irq source
can get lost) it can be doable and reliable. (Here i dont mean the
probe_irq_on/off interface, but the concept of auto-detection.)
Alan has a very neat hack that fixes laptop BIOS breakage in associating
a screaming interrupt with the driver that responds to it with
IRQ_HANDLED, by probing through all the SHIRQ handlers and checking
whether the return code is IRQ_HANDLED. (this patch was in -mm but has
not been integrated into the generic irq subsystem yet.) This patch
turned a broken-under-Linux into a working laptop so we cannot ignore
it.
In theory, as long as all drivers involved are shared-irq-capable, and
all interrupts are level-triggered and get repeated if unhandled, we can
always do this kinds of driver-feedback-based irq vector discovery.
Think about the positive effects: in theory we could even boot into a
box without _any_ BIOS interrupt info whatsoever, assuming only a few
architecture basics like the identity of the timer interrupt.
Furthermore, if the BIOS reports _bad_ interrupt information, we can
detect & redirect that interrupt to the driver that responds to it.
this is not a concept that would be too useful for the server space, but
it sure could be useful for the produce-and-forget PC mass-market. We
are playing a constant and mostly losing catchup game with BIOS quirks.
what can never work fully reliably is of course what the feature was
used for primarily: ISA :-) One-time edge-triggered interrupts that get
lost are nasty ...
so i thought autodetect.c could survive in the generic code - maybe we
can make something really nice out of it, based on Alan's patch.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-20 9:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-20 7:08 [PATCH] Fix PREEMPT_ACTIVE definition Paul Mackerras
2004-10-20 8:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-10-20 8:42 ` New consolidate irqs vs . probe_irq_*() Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2004-10-20 8:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-10-20 8:53 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2004-10-20 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2004-10-20 10:56 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2004-10-20 9:31 ` Chris Wedgwood
2004-10-20 9:01 ` Russell King
2004-10-20 10:50 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2004-10-20 11:01 ` Russell King
2004-10-20 11:06 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2004-10-20 11:53 ` Paul Mackerras
2004-10-20 12:31 ` Russell King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041020092017.GA28054@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome