• Locked Locked
  • Replies 7 replies
  • Subscribers 119 subscribers
  • Views 7221 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
How was your experience today?
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

GIC IAR always returns spurious interrupt

Steve Jahr
Note: This was originally posted on 29th March 2012 at http://forums.arm.com

Trying to write a GIC driver (V1 w/security extensions) on an embedded A9 MPCORE based system with 2 cores.

Can successfully initialize GIC and issue SGI interrupt from each CPU to the other CPU.
These interrupts show up on each side in pending state.
IRQ posted to CPU, CPU responds and reads IAR getting 0x3ff response.
GIC changes state of interrupt from pending to active.
GIC adjusts running priority to priority of active interrupt.

I have verified that CPUs are running in secure mode and all interrupts are configured in secure mode.
I have compared my code with the ARM ukernel reference code and can find no material differences (I have changed mine to more closely match all options).

What am I missing here?  How is it that the GIC seems to believe a valid interrupt acknowledge has occurred (as indicated by change of interrupt state) but not return valid interrupt ID to IAR read?
Parents
  • Note: This was originally posted on 2nd April 2012 at http://forums.arm.com


    > I had wondered what would happen if the IAR were read more than once...

    The first read would acknowledge the currently highest pending interrupt*, the second read would acknowledge the next highest pending interrupt.  Technically this is not really a problem, as long as you actually handle both.

    * Highest priority after masking (etc...)


    Just to make this clear, successive reads WILL acknowledge successive interrupts IFF there are pending interrupts which pass all of the priority screening.  Stated another way preemptive interrupts will be acknowledged and non-preemptive interrupts will not.

    Bottom line: generally not a good idea to have any extra reads of the IAR.


    One issue with your work around is that you have more than one core.  For SPIs (not PPIs or SGIs) if the interrupt targets multiple cores, you may have got spurious back because one of the cores got there first.


    Good point, similar to the using the IAR acknowledge process and a CPU getting into the first level ISR.  One big difference is the IAR reading process is fundamentally atomic with respect to getting IDs while my HPPIR process is NOT atomic at all.  The workaround does open a larger critical section.  In my application interrupts will be routed to a single CPU thus avoiding the conflict.

    I wonder... is there some way that the GIC can see a double read cycle from a single instruction? (might explain what I am seeing)
Reply
  • Note: This was originally posted on 2nd April 2012 at http://forums.arm.com


    > I had wondered what would happen if the IAR were read more than once...

    The first read would acknowledge the currently highest pending interrupt*, the second read would acknowledge the next highest pending interrupt.  Technically this is not really a problem, as long as you actually handle both.

    * Highest priority after masking (etc...)


    Just to make this clear, successive reads WILL acknowledge successive interrupts IFF there are pending interrupts which pass all of the priority screening.  Stated another way preemptive interrupts will be acknowledged and non-preemptive interrupts will not.

    Bottom line: generally not a good idea to have any extra reads of the IAR.


    One issue with your work around is that you have more than one core.  For SPIs (not PPIs or SGIs) if the interrupt targets multiple cores, you may have got spurious back because one of the cores got there first.


    Good point, similar to the using the IAR acknowledge process and a CPU getting into the first level ISR.  One big difference is the IAR reading process is fundamentally atomic with respect to getting IDs while my HPPIR process is NOT atomic at all.  The workaround does open a larger critical section.  In my application interrupts will be routed to a single CPU thus avoiding the conflict.

    I wonder... is there some way that the GIC can see a double read cycle from a single instruction? (might explain what I am seeing)
Children
No data