Testing the interrupt extension API?

[Gedare Bloom]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 11:55 PM Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>
> On 10/10/2019 01:25, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> >>>> Interrupts with cap.can_raise set and cap.has_peripheral cleared can be
> >>>> safely software controlled and used for tests.
> >>> Why not just have an "is_software_triggered"?
> >> As a replacement for has_peripheral?
> >>
> > yes, it seems that if an interrupt is software triggered, then it
> > cannot have a peripheral. I don't know if the opposite is true though,
> > I guess there can be interrupt lines that are not software triggered,
> > but don't have a peripheral attached to them, but then they are not
> > active lines they can't actually raise an interrupt.  I don't know if
> > that makes any sense.
>
> On some controllers you can trigger every interrupt vector by software.
> On some you you can only trigger a subset. On some systems, some
> interrupt vectors are not available and cannot be triggered at all, e.g.
> chip variant A supports hardware modules M0, M1, and M2, variant B
> supports only M0, so the vectors used by M1 and M2 are not used (disabled).
>
OK, then for the purpose of testing, you would want to know if a
vector "can_be_software_triggered" even if it "has_peripheral" so both
should be included I think.

> --
> Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
>
> Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
> Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
> Fax     : +49 89 189 47 41-09
> E-Mail  : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
> PGP     : Public key available on request.
>
> Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.