[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1286796886.5220.4.camel@pasglop>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 22:34:46 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/47] Sparse irq rework
> Hmm, that's probably a problem for all legacy interrupts which are
> never torn down once they are set up. And we set them all up during
> early boot.
>
> So either we special case the legacy area or remove the warning
> alltogether.
>
> Another option I discussed with Suresh recently is to remove the
> allocator in intr_remapping.c and just embedd irq_2_iommu into
> irq_cfg.
Just in case that's of use, on powerpc, we just special case the legacy
range. It's keep un-requestable unless somebody comes and explicitely
claims it (using a special flag for our virq scheme, typically only 8259
does it for us) and then we get 1:1 all pre-allocated and mostly
immutable.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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