Okay... I think I've got a problem that isn't covered by the usual
I'm now trying to implment a second-level interrupt demuxer. My
exception handler, when it sees a certain bit set in the CP0_CAUSE
register set, attempts to read from the second-level controller. The
problem is, that code looks like this:
li t0, 0xfc000000
lb t1, 0xc(t0)
Which, as you can see, attempts to access address 0xfc00000c. And
then I get:
Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address fc00000c,
epc == 801af2ac, ra == 80102eb8
Oops in fault.c::do_page_fault, line 206:
I'm guessing I'm in trouble here. My instincts tell me the the only
way out of this might be to add a wired TLB entry to make certain I
can always access physical address 0xfc00000c... but I'm hoping there
is a better solution than tying up a TLB entry like that. After all,
isn't that what ioremap is supposed to do?
Matthew D. Dharm Senior Software Designer
Momentum Computer Inc. 1815 Aston Ave. Suite 107
(760) 431-8663 X-115 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7310
Momentum Works For You www.momenco.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Jun Sun
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 1:46 PM
> To: Matthew Dharm
> Cc: Linux-MIPS
> Subject: Re: Interrupt handling....
> Matthew Dharm wrote:
> > I've taken it upon myself to re-write some interrupt
> handling code.
> > It's a mess, and it needs cleaning.
> That is usually a right attitude to start ... :=)
> > An interrupt handler must be registered with
> set_except_vector(0, ...)
> > which must return a numeric code in the range of
> 0..NR_IRQS -- it can
> > do this in any way it wants, including limited function calls (ie
> > there is a stack in place).
> Interrupt is setup throught request_irq()/setup_irq().
> for setting exception handlers, which is different from interrupts.
> > The irq_desc array of irq_desc_t structures is where the magic
> > happens. The value returned by the interrupt handler is
> used as an
> > index into this array to do the dispatch a specific handler. The
> > 'status' and 'action' fields are pretty much
> self-explanatory. The
> > 'handler' field seems to point to a set of function
> pointers used for
> > enabling/disabling the IRQ. But what is 'depth' for?
> Boards seem to
> > set it to either 0 or 1 commonly, but I don't see why.
> For nested disabling and enabling of interrupts.
> > I also don't
> > see how IRQ sharing is accomplished...
> Yes, it is there. See do_IRQ() and a sub-routine
> handle_event() (or something
> like that)
> > Is this pretty much how it all works?
> I have a more detailed description in my porting guide.