On Sun Jul 13, 2025 at 12:24 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Sun Jul 13, 2025 at 1:32 AM CEST, Daniel Almeida wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 12 Jul 2025, at 18:24, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu Jul 3, 2025 at 9:30 PM CEST, Daniel Almeida wrote:
>>>> +/// Callbacks for an IRQ handler.
>>>> +pub trait Handler: Sync {
>>>> + /// The hard IRQ handler.
>>>> + ///
>>>> + /// This is executed in interrupt context, hence all corresponding
>>>> + /// limitations do apply.
>>>> + ///
>>>> + /// All work that does not necessarily need to be executed from
>>>> + /// interrupt context, should be deferred to a threaded handler.
>>>> + /// See also [`ThreadedRegistration`].
>>>> + fn handle(&self) -> IrqReturn;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> One thing I forgot, the IRQ handlers should have a &Device<Bound> argument,
>>> i.e.:
>>>
>>> fn handle(&self, dev: &Device<Bound>) -> IrqReturn
>>>
>>> IRQ registrations naturally give us this guarantee, so we should take advantage
>>> of that.
>>>
>>> - Danilo
>>
>> Hi Danilo,
>>
>> I do not immediately see a way to get a Device<Bound> from here:
>>
>> unsafe extern "C" fn handle_irq_callback<T: Handler>(_irq: i32, ptr: *mut c_void) -> c_uint {
>>
>> Refall that we've established `ptr` to be the address of the handler. This
>> came after some back and forth and after the extensive discussion that Benno
>> and Boqun had w.r.t to pinning in request_irq().
>
> You can just wrap the Handler in a new type and store the pointer there:
>
> #[pin_data]
> struct Wrapper {
> #[pin]
> handler: T,
> dev: NonNull<Device<Bound>>,
> }
>
> And then pass a pointer to the Wrapper field to request_irq();
> handle_irq_callback() can construct a &T and a &Device<Bound> from this.
>
> Note that storing a device pointer, without its own reference count, is
> perfectly fine, since inner (Devres<RegistrationInner>) already holds a
> reference to the device and guarantees the bound scope for the handler
> callbacks.
Can't we just add an accessor function to `Devres`?
Also `Devres` only stores `Device<Normal>`, not `Device<Bound>`...
---
Cheers,
Benno
> It makes sense to document this as an invariant of Wrapper (or whatever we end
> up calling it).
