Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:34:32 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Andrew Turner <andrew@fubar.geek.nz> Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: interrupt framework Message-ID: <6E33C7B5-F784-4604-9F09-9FEDB1EFBE56@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20150116120315.7f343f66@bender.lan> References: <CAFHCsPX5kG_v-F-cjpyMQsT_b386eok=mqWW0%2BEUb_4-_1Otnw@mail.gmail.com> <20150115192624.122066dd@bender.lan> <CAFHCsPW5q=jMsehuYro7V5g56pMXK1tENP-_ibpg0q76LLWxJQ@mail.gmail.com> <20150116120315.7f343f66@bender.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Apple-Mail=_661B2A50-D00F-415F-8037-0334B40915D6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Jan 16, 2015, at 5:03 AM, Andrew Turner <andrew@fubar.geek.nz> = wrote: >=20 > On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:44:22 +0100 > Svatopluk Kraus <onwahe@gmail.com> wrote: > ... >> It's just a few things from quick look now which are different in our >> design. However, my intention is not read our code on behalf of you. = I >> still think that our design is more general mainly and can serve for >> interrupt controllers better. >=20 > I was asking on the differences as I'm already in the process of > importing the arm_intrng project branch as I need something like it on > arm64. It is also based on the same code from Jakub and Ian, I haven't > looked at changing the design, just cleaning up the code to import = into > head. >=20 > I would be happy to merge your code instead, along with my existing > cleanups, however I would need to know why I should spend time on it = as > opposed to the current development branch. If we do decide to with = your > change I would like to import it into the arm_intrng project branch > first to assist the import into head. My first look at Svatopluk=E2=80=99s code and summaries, on its surface = it seems to be a simpler, more generalized and more effective design than intern. It avoids some additional overhead that=E2=80=99s always troubled me = about intern that I=E2=80=99ve not had the time to make good suggestions to overcome. = It looks (again on its surface) easier to bring to all the architectures as well. I haven=E2=80=99t tried to use the code so I can=E2=80=99t comment on = its stability. So of course I can=E2=80=99t measure the differences in interrupt latencies between = the two. Both of these factors would be the kind of data that would help drive the = decision of which one to adapt. Warner --Apple-Mail=_661B2A50-D00F-415F-8037-0334B40915D6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUuS+IAAoJEGwc0Sh9sBEAQLEQAJFGhkdV6qK95lokyahXiEPA ccY4VevBONUAhWRvkvbqOj3lsxQFVxK3k6ddCe62Zd15+QsfmeiYTnGqfvZA6qaq cR9F7LCpp2HxFvlrSTGxcSAHNxBdf4cKeWFqwtStv0gZsGfnkkbOeXp+cj9bvLQ5 x/2XptFXVT9wpQ46N90v1NDHbNryIMpYuTpPu3eAe8fEeeZoUzx7+tVQ4YJRkDpU ckHXaWe6nwOGFKBoofvyulSbXVH7QlmaRyuZeDlVhpSfGanwRQOva2lmWyoeV0jg l5S7pIUgajjHfvlBr3zZjo3MaE29TOe0efo6MM1eUhPM+aTdExG0pSXuKzKu6805 20fikLrVvvLKwfYxQm9hMiQClQQ58Rwe03jghBH5NU4reo9YZMdSVQCRkedWqxUV xhy82qEHSy2eFti1flXA2TAldoS9dL1L24/BfCNKmqnJaHC+sLMpy2JCVDwFHcYK SpYR8LzjxxK13KFxC9bQTu4Sae/i8CJ4RHaC0zepC9h2lXFFMvJeEC6+hxzGBqqW SzR7teqvWj3j/1WkU/M0c0WBf6n0Tl6zi4MebPPF8K4n5cMvLLG5EIxJUD5jLHI1 h2GkrEdI7FFWwun2B7hQrw71RDaa4y4KsVffJ1mtz2Z/nJDn1Ew12QP5qpa4RBFG fvH9/ekaEe6ngELz4lie =+86/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_661B2A50-D00F-415F-8037-0334B40915D6--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6E33C7B5-F784-4604-9F09-9FEDB1EFBE56>