EPIC Vs OpenPIC (RFC)

[Mark A. Greer]

Dag Nygren wrote:

> > Sarnath, Dag, Andrew,
> >
> > What I think you guys are discovering is an artifact of the inadequate
> > interface to openpic_init()--its wider than just a 8259/107 problem.  This has
> > been discussed before and some ideas kick around.
> >
> > Since you guys seem to have the time & motivation, why don't you go back &
> > check out the mail archives for that/those discussion(s).  If you like what
> > was talked about there, go with it or come up with a better solution and post
> > it here for everyone to comment on.  It would be really nice to have a more
> > flexible interface to openpic_init(), et. al.
>
> Would something like this be sufficient/good as interface ?:
>
> typedef enum irq_level_en
>     {OP_IRQ_HIGH=1,
>      OP_IRQ_LOW=0}
> irq_level_type;
>
> typedef enum irq_enable_en
>     {OP_IRQ_ON=1,
>     OP_IRQ_OFF=0}
> irq_enable_type;
>
> typedef struct openpic_irq_def_str {
>     u_int           PICIrq;
>     u_int           LinuxIrq;
>     u_char          Priority;
>     irq_level_type  IrqLevel;
>     irq_enable_type IrqEnable;
> } openpic_irq_def;
>
> typedef struct openpic_def_str {
>     struct OpenPIC  *OpenPIC_Addr;
>     int             main_pic;
>     u_char          RegOffset; /* 0 for "standard", 16 for MPC107 */
>     char            *chrp_ack;
>     int             programmer_switch_irq; /* Not really needed with the
> Priority/IRQ poss. */
>     openpic_irq_def *IRQdef;
> } openpic_def;
>
> extern void openpic_init(*openpic_def);
>
> If so, I could try to implement it in the current open_pic.c

This is along the lines that I was thinking except add a struct member to specify
whether edge or level sensitive--i.e., separate members for hi/lo and edge/level.

What exactly is the "IrqEnable" for?  Is this so you can set up the IRQ but not
enable it?  Then the driver can enable it later and its set up correctly (e.g.,
I2C)??

Doesn't the new struct eliminate the need for "RegOffset"?  And as you noted,
"programmer_switch_irq" probably isn't needed either.  Right?

If you're up to it, how about implementing, testing, then posting a patch for
everyone to check out??

Mark


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/