On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 13:16 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>
> > I don't know (didn't look) why this works for 83xx w/o ack()...
> > maybe IPIC don't need this. Or maybe there is a bug hiding.
>
> Scott W told me that me that the IPIC doesn't have the concept of EOI ack.
> It
Timur Tabi wrote:
> Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>
>> I don't know (didn't look) why this works for 83xx w/o ack()...
>> maybe IPIC don't need this. Or maybe there is a bug hiding.
>
> Scott W told me that me that the IPIC doesn't have the concept of EOI ack.
> It
> just has IRQ masks.
And the IRQ
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> I don't know (didn't look) why this works for 83xx w/o ack()...
> maybe IPIC don't need this. Or maybe there is a bug hiding.
Scott W told me that me that the IPIC doesn't have the concept of EOI ack. It
just has IRQ masks.
--
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Frees
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 12:03:08PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>> set_irq_chained_handler overwrites MPIC's handle_irq function
>> (handle_fasteoi_irq) thus MPIC never gets eoi event from the
>> cascaded IRQ. This situation hangs MPIC on MPC8568E.
>
> I'm not familiar with the
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> set_irq_chained_handler overwrites MPIC's handle_irq function
> (handle_fasteoi_irq) thus MPIC never gets eoi event from the
> cascaded IRQ. This situation hangs MPIC on MPC8568E.
I'm not familiar with the differences between IPIC and MPIC. What is this
patch not needed
