chs@ wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 03:40:12AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote: > > chs@ wrote: > > > > > Module Name: src > > > Committed By: chs > > > Date: Tue Aug 14 15:46:21 UTC 2012 > > > > > > Modified Files: > > > src/sys/arch/evbarm/iq80310: iq80310_intr.c > > > > > > Log Message: > > > move evcnt_attach_dynamic() calls later to avoid assertions. > > > > > > - what happens if intr_establish function is called more than once > > against the same irq? > > > > - shouldn't disestablish function have evcnt_detach()? > > > > - isn't it better to defer intr_init() calls after evcnt_init(), > > rather than calling evcnt_attach_dynamic() in intr_establish() ? > > > > > > It looks many other arm intr_init functions > > (arm/ep93xx/ep93xx_intr.c, arm/xscale/ixp425_intr.c etc) > > have the same problem, though. > > (on the other hand marvell variants don't have evcnt at all) : > are you suggesting to undo my change and instead move the call to > iq80310_intr_init() from initarm() to somewhere else? if so, where? > > or are you suggesting to move the calls to evcnt_attach_dynamic() > from iq80310_intr_init() to a separate function which could be called > later? if so, where would be a good place to call that other function?
The former is okay because interrupts won't be enabled before at least cpu_configure(9) and I moved such initializations into cpu_configure(9) on several mips and m68k ports. But on evbarm cpu_configure(9) is shared among all boards so we need some hook to handle it? Or call it mainbus_attach()? Or just disable intr evcnt(9) for now? --- Izumi Tsutsui
