[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Multiple dec2114x units on ppc



Joel Sherrill writes:
 > 
 > 
 > gregory.menke at gsfc.nasa.gov wrote:
 > > 
 > > Till Straumann writes:
 > >  > gregory.menke at gsfc.nasa.gov wrote:
 > >  > > Till Straumann writes:
 > >  > >  > Gregory.
 > 
 > Sorry .. deleted some comment about irq API on/off.  I believe
 > these are support routines that should be able to be provided 
 > by the BSP for a specific DEC NIC interface.  Just because it is
 > a particular NIC doesn't mean it has the usual interrupt setup.
 > The "normal" way could be provided as support routines which the
 > BSP could configure without providing them itself.
 > 
 > This is simply part of the glue that a BSP may have to provide or
 > use defaults.

The issue we're grappling with is cpci interrupts in general.  Any
cpci board that can issue an interrupt must face this issue.

 
 > >  > NOTE: since the BSP doesn't implement true IRQ sharing,
 > >  >        you run into trouble as soon as different PCI
 > >  >        devices (i.e. a dec2114x and some other device)
 > >  >        share a common IRQ line.
 > > 
 > > It looks like managing the cpci vectoring in some kind of organized
 > > way will be quite a pain.  It makes me almost want to defer it to the
 > > user- if they want cpci devices, they must supply INTERRUPT_PIN and
 > > INTERRUPT_LINE(for translation to interrupt name) for each device
 > > they're going to use.  Its not pretty, but it would keep things
 > > simpler.
 > 
 > I don't know the exact interrupt structure the baord has but 
 > we found that a PowerPC BSP almost has to support being able to
 > have an "ISR handler" that is in fact a second level vectoring
 > routine.  THe case I am thinking of is a PMC module that has about
 > 15 interrupt sources on it.  It is mapped to a single IRQ to the
 > baseboard which is in turn off of an IRQ.  You get one interrupt
 > that says "something on the PMC wants attention" and it is up to 
 > "PMC specific vectoring routine" to figure out which one.  

This is my understanding; The PPC board has a 16 channel interrupt
controller- MPIC, supported by the openpic* suite of functions.
Various built-in peripherals wire their interrupts to particular (and
known) channels on the controller- these are no problem, one vector
per interrupt (with the exception being the ISA interrupts, which I
don't really understand yet).  The cpci chassis wires each of the 4
PCI interrupt wires onto the controller as well, also on known
channels.  The problem is the cpci boards cannot supply a vector when
asserting an interrupt- all the interrupt controller sees is one (or
more) of the 4 cpci interrupt lines is asserting an interrupt.  Since
each line has its own vector, the PPC vectoring routines can at most
distinguish between 4 sets of interrupt sources.  If you have n >= 2
boards that both assert INT A, then something in the interrupt service
routines has to check each of the boards to see which is asserting the
interrupt (and it could be 1, some or all of them).  The 4 interrupt
pins are entirely independent, so the easy case would be to assign
each of 4 cpci boards their own pin (and as a consequence each has
their own vector)- which is fine until you have more than 4 boards.
The PPC firmware doesn't configure the cpci or pmc slots on startup,
which is why this issue is so wide open.

This leaves 2 alternatives;

1.  Have the user supply the interrupt line and pin for each cpci
    device.  If vectors can be chained, then compliant drivers can do
    a low-cost check if its their board asserting and service it if so
    or allow the system to keep checking if not.

2.  Make a fancier bsp-level interrupt management layer that abstracts
    all the issues- this will still require vector chaining.

Frankly, I like #1.  It requires less labor to make it work- really
its a driver architecture issue- they must be chainable and have a
low-cost interrupt assertion test and thats pretty much it.  An
abstract interface is nice, but it buries a lot of complexity that I
think is unneeded in most cases.  I think keeping the PIC servicing
buried in the BSP is a good idea, the drivers should only have to know
about how to service their devices.  It seems to me we could define an
"interrupt vector" struct which the user fills in and that takes on
appropriate meanings for each bsp using it, sort of like how struct
sockaddr can be interpreted for different address families.

Gregm