Re: xenix install problems

It seems I fixed it by removing the auto-aknoledge of irq in the 68k core.
LOS and Macworks are still working, so I think it's the correct option.

On 12 juil, 23:15, gilles <gilles.fe..._at_email.domain.hidden> wrote:
> On 12 juil, 17:21, Ray Arachelian <r..._at_email.domain.hidden> wrote:
>
> > gilles wrote:
> > > I found the problem.
> > > Xenix uses T1 and T2 timers to generate interrupts.
> > > If T1 elapse and T2 elapse when T1 interrupt is served, the interrupt
> > > vector does not clear the T2 bit in the IFR register.
> > > Interrupts are broken after that event.
> > > The VIA emulation is ok, so the problem is probably in the 68k core
> > > that should relaunch the IRQ since the line remains set.
>
> > Yeah, so that should cause T2 to generate a 2nd interrupt as soon as the
> > mask is dropped back down after the RTE.
>
> I'm not sure RTE is really an active opcode for interrupts on a 68k. I
> know many emulators uses this opcode to detect the end of an IRQ but
> it may be a hack. The check for IRQ relaunch should be made when SR is
> modified (that may happen in RTE, but also in MOVE_SR)
>
> > I'd trace that code and see what happens there. Xenix does indeed to
> > strange things on a Lisa.
>
> > What I have in LisaEm is a routine that checks each device to see if it
> > wants to fire an IRQ, then see the highest ones matches the mask in the
> > status register, and then decide to fire or not. That's what a 68000 does.
>
> > The hardware itself has commands to clear the interrupts, so the
> > interrupt service routine in xenix should clear the IRQ. I'm not 100%
> > sure as to what the behavior of the via is off the top of my head, you'd
> > have to check to see if it will ignore the T2 interrupt if you've
> > already handled the T1. I think, but am not 100% sure, that it should
> > still trigger another interrupt.
>
> T1 and T2 are wired to the same IRQ line, in the VIA. You need to
> access VIA registers to clear the flag and then to clear the IRQ line.
> In that case, the VIA IRQ line will remain. It may be simpler to
> relanch the IRQ in the VIA code, but it's wrong to a strict electronic
> point of view.
> For now, I suspect a bug in the 68k core. I don't think all IRQ should
> be auto-acknoleged.
>
>
>
> > I think the way it works is that if the bits are enabled in IER, when
> > you handle it, it clears just the bit corresponding to the one that was
> > handled in IFR, and then gets to fire again, but check the via manuals
> > to be sure.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LisaList" group. To post to this group, send email to lisalist_at_email.domain.hidden To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lisalist-unsubscribe_at_email.domain.hidden For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lisalist?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- Received on 2007-07-12 19:55:10