[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4920BA3A.5090100@zytor.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:26:34 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, travis@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparse_irq aka dyn_irq v13
Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> I really don't think anyone gives a hoot about the IRQ number for any
>> IRQ above the 0-15 legacy range, even including the "APIC" numbers 16+.
>
> you want to change ioapic/pin to irq mapping too?
> so INTx and MSI will call create_irq_nr to get one irq for 16, and following first come and first serve rule.
>
I personally don't think there is any issue with changing ioapic/pin to
IRQ mapping. Other people may disagree. My opinion is that IRQ numbers
16-23 are somewhat useful when you're dealing with a single IOAPIC, but
after that it's all a blur.
It would, however, be a good idea if IOAPICs had their numbers assigned
at detection time, as opposed to when the interrupt is registered, thus
making it a stable number for a single boot, at least. The same is
probably true for MSI(-X); we could assign it a range of numbers when
the device is enumerated (as opposed to when a driver is activated), but
I don't know to what extent that is likely to cause more troubles than
it solves.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists