j3d1/esp-open-rtos
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Interrupt support refactor

Browse source 
Write inline versions for SDK-based interrupt convenience functions.
This commit is contained in:
Angus Gratton 2015-06-08 18:00:44 +10:00
parent 0dbb6d31a5
commit 822533fd92
5 changed files with 109 additions and 25 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

40
FreeRTOS/Source/portable/esp8266/port.c
View file

@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ void IRAM PendSV(enum SVC_ReqType req)
else if(req == SVC_MACLayer)
pending_maclayer_sv= 1;
xthal_set_intset(1<<ETS_SOFT_INUM);
xthal_set_intset(BIT(INUM_SOFT));
vPortExitCritical();
}
@ -162,7 +162,6 @@ void xPortSysTickHandle (void)
{
if(xTaskIncrementTick() !=pdFALSE )
{
//GPIO_REG_WRITE(GPIO_STATUS_W1TS_ADDRESS, 0x40);
vTaskSwitchContext();
}
}
@ -174,8 +173,8 @@ void xPortSysTickHandle (void)
*/
portBASE_TYPE xPortStartScheduler( void )
{
_xt_isr_attach(ETS_SOFT_INUM, SV_ISR);
sdk__xt_isr_unmask(1<<ETS_SOFT_INUM);
_xt_isr_attach(INUM_SOFT, SV_ISR);
_xt_isr_unmask(BIT(INUM_SOFT));
/* Initialize system tick timer interrupt and schedule the first tick. */
sdk__xt_tick_timer_init();
@ -236,25 +235,42 @@ void _xt_isr_attach(uint8_t i, _xt_isr func)
isr[i] = func;
}
uint16_t _xt_isr_handler(uint16_t i)
uint16_t IRAM _xt_isr_handler(uint16_t i)
{
uint8_t index;
if (i & (1 << ETS_WDT_INUM)) {
index = ETS_WDT_INUM;
/* I think this is implementing some kind of interrupt priority or
short-circuiting an expensive ffs for most common interrupts - ie
WDT And GPIO are common or high priority, then remaining flags.
*/
if (i & (1 << INUM_WDT)) {
index = INUM_WDT;
}
else if (i & (1 << ETS_GPIO_INUM)) {
index = ETS_GPIO_INUM;
else if (i & (1 << INUM_GPIO)) {
index = INUM_GPIO;
}else {
index = __builtin_ffs(i) - 1;
if (index == ETS_MAX_INUM) {
i &= ~(1 << ETS_MAX_INUM);
if (index == INUM_MAX) {
/* I don't understand what happens here. INUM_MAX is not
the highest interrupt number listed (and the isr array
has 16 entries).
Clearing that flag and then setting index to
__builtin_ffs(i)-1 may result in index == 255 if no
higher flags are set, unless this is guarded against
somehow by the caller?
I also don't understand why the code is written like
this in esp_iot_rtos_sdk instead of just putting the i
&= line near the top... Probably no good reason?
*/
i &= ~(1 << INUM_MAX);
index = __builtin_ffs(i) - 1;
}
}
sdk__xt_clear_ints(1<<index);
_xt_clear_ints(1<<index);
isr[index]();