[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53DBA603.9030509@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 09:36:51 -0500
From: Suravee Suthikulanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
CC: Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
"jason@...edaemon.net" <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Harish.Kasiviswanathan@....com" <Harish.Kasiviswanathan@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 V3] irqchip: gicv2m: Add support for multiple MSI
for ARM64 GICv2m
On 7/30/2014 10:16 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Why do we need this complexity at all? Is there any case where we'd want
> to limit ourselves to a single vector for MSI?
I think the ARM64 GICv2m should not be the limitation for the devices
multiple MSI if there is no real hardware/design limitation.
> arm64 is a new enough architecture so that we can expect all interrupt controllers to cope
> with that.
I am not sure if I understand this comment.
We are not forcing all interrupt controllers for ARM64 to handle
multi-MSI. They have the option to support if multi-MSI if they want
to. I just think that we should not put the architectural limit here.
Thanks,
Suravee
--
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