Re: Ethernet not so good.
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Tony Mantler wrote:
> I think we should only be running slot ints in a polled mode if a slot
> interrupt is triggered with no handler.
It's a thought, but you still run the risk of say a buggy driver not
clearing an int condition properly and hosing the slot interrupt.
> For example, every time a real slot int is triggered, the contents of VIA2
> Register B (is that the right register? I can't remember) can be saved in a
> variable, then the VIA1 int handler could run a line like 'if
> (last_slot_ints & ~handled_slot_ints) poll_slot_ints();' and avoid running
> through a bunch of unnessacary code a million and a half times.
Considering the nubus interrupt check is more or less one if() statement
in the no-irq case i'm not sure it's worth the extra complexity. I'd have
to check on this part but we should at least be checking via2b directly
from the via1_irq handler and not dispatching through to via_nubus_irq
unless necessary. That would at least keep the counters from running up.
Hmm on actually checking the 2.3 cvs code we are blindly calling
via_nubus_irq() on every iteration, not to mention three other functions
at the same time....i'll have to fix that. Stay tuned.
> Or maybe I should just stop thinking about the whole slot int mess and put
> a few more pins in my special collectors edition Apple engineers voodoo
> doll set...
Not a bad idea in any case. Level-triggered interrupts without a
forced-acknowledge capability...grrr.
--
funaho@jurai.org | If you can't hear me it's because I'm in
http://www.jurai.org/~funaho | parentheses.
| -- Attributed to Steven Wright
Reply to: