[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQ
From: |
Jan Kiszka |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register |
Date: |
Tue, 04 Sep 2012 19:55:25 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080226 SUSE/2.0.0.12-1.1 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 |
On 2012-09-04 19:41, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> What I'm trying to understand and translate from the description is
>> rather "note that for inputs a high-to-low transition cancels the
>> interrupt as in the level-triggered mode." This is surely not what we do
>> right now. OTOH, I'm afraid that switching to this mode in the PIC can
>> cause problems elsewhere, with devices that actually inject short
>> low-high-low signals. Still wrapping my head around it...
>
> That won't work reliably with true 8259A hardware -- for an
Ok, then we have to scan our code base for such device models that won't
survive with real 8259A hardware. That can only be devices attached to
edge-only inputs of the PIC, namely the PIT, the keyboard controller,
the RTC and FPU emulation. They basically need to generate high-low-high
transitions on new events, instead of low-high-low (via qemu_irq_pulse
e.g.). I'm I on the right track?
Thanks,
Jan
> edge-triggered interrupt to propagate up to the CPU first there must be a
> low-to-high transition and then the high logic state must be maintained up
> until the start of the second INTA cycle. If the interrupt request drops
> before then (e.g. because CPU interrupts have been masked or a
> higher-priority 8259A has been serviced), then the corresponding IRR bit
> is cleared and either the interrupt is missed altogether or, if the CPU
> has already accepted the interrupt and started the first INTA cycle, then
> the spurious vector is supplied and no ISR bit is set.
>
> To put it in different words: the only actual difference between
> edge-triggered and level-triggered interrupts in the 8259A is that the
> formers require a leading edge to record another interrupt. For both
> trigger modes the high level has to be maintained until the second INTA
> cycle for the interrupt to be correctly delivered to the CPU and also in
> both trigger modes a trailing edge cancels the interrupt.
>
> This is unlike the traditional edge-triggered mode where the level does
> not have to be maintained once a leading edge has been correctly recorded
> (there is usually spike filtering logic implemented on such IRQ inputs so
> appropriate timings have to be met; because of its unusual interpretation
> the 8259A obviously does not require such logic).
>
> The edge detector logic is also drawn in the 8259A datasheet (that for a
> change used to be available from one of the Intel sites in the PDF form)
> and I believe the functionality described can be inferred from that by the
> curious enough. ;)
>
> Maciej
>
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register, Jan Kiszka, 2012/09/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register, Jan Kiszka, 2012/09/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/09/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register, Jan Kiszka, 2012/09/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/09/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register, Jan Kiszka, 2012/09/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register, Maciej W. Rozycki, 2012/09/04
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/09/04
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register, Jan Kiszka, 2012/09/04
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register, Maciej W. Rozycki, 2012/09/04
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register,
Jan Kiszka <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register, Maciej W. Rozycki, 2012/09/04
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register, Jan Kiszka, 2012/09/04
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register, Matthew Ogilvie, 2012/09/05
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register, Jan Kiszka, 2012/09/05