On 23/07/2021 17:03, Gedare Bloom wrote:
@@ -195,15 +246,35 @@ rtems_status_code bsp_interrupt_raise_on(
uint32_t cpu_index
)
{
- bsp_interrupt_assert(bsp_interrupt_is_valid_vector(vector));
- return RTEMS_UNSATISFIED;
+ if (vector >= 16) {
Use (vector > ARM_GIC_IRQ_SGI_LAST) for clarity?
no need to repost for this change.
Ok, I will fix this. This part was older than the defines.
+ return RTEMS_UNSATISFIED;
+ }
+
+ arm_gic_trigger_sgi(vector, 1U << cpu_index);
Should we assert cpu_index <
rtems_configuration_get_maximum_processors()? That would be consistent
with using assert that the vector is valid, since both are handled
when coming in through the rtems_interrupt_*() interface.
Yes, this makes sense.
--
embedded brains GmbH
Herr Sebastian HUBER
Dornierstr. 4
82178 Puchheim
Germany
email: sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 16
fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08
Registergericht: Amtsgericht München
Registernummer: HRB 157899
Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler
Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier:
https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
