Richard Gooch <rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca> writes:
> Alan Cox writes:
> > > > The PS/2 hardware requires delays, but it does not require that
> > > > interrupts are off for the entire period to my knowledge.
> > >
> > > OK, but there's still the locking. We can't just have the interrupt
> > > handler frob the controller while elsewhere we're poking it, can we?
> >
> > Indeed we cannot. We need to do locking but we need to do it a
> > different way.
>
> Which leads to my other question: can we "ignore" the interrupt
> (i.e. just update a flag somewhere) for later processing in a process
> context?
>
> Or can we block the interrupt? And hope no-one else is sharing it...
ack! don't do that. i'm sharing it.
euler(jk)$ cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3
0: 420552 415935 428857 433866 IO-APIC-edge timer
1: 1302 1517 1318 1443 IO-APIC-edge keyboard
2: 0 0 0 0 XT-PIC cascade
5: 0 1 0 2 IO-APIC-edge soundblaster
8: 1 0 0 0 IO-APIC-edge rtc
12: 29010 29277 29577 29866 IO-APIC-level eth1, PS/2 Mouse
13: 1 0 0 0 XT-PIC fpu
15: 9736 10520 9629 9741 IO-APIC-level sym53c8xx, sym53c8xx
NMI: 0
ERR: 0
if only i could figure out how to un-share them. i've got plenty of
interrupts to go around. silly pci bios...
-- J o h a n K u l l s t a m [kullstam@ne.mediaone.net] Don't Fear the Penguin!- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:16 EST