[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <546B5D2B.7000206@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:52:27 +0800
From: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Yun Wu (Abel)" <wuyun.wu@...wei.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 08/16] genirq: Introduce callback irq_chip.irq_write_msi_msg
On 2014/11/18 22:34, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
> On 2014/11/18 22:19, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
>>> On 2014/11/18 21:43, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>>> We provide an irq_chip for each type of interrupt controller
>>>> instead of devices. For the example mentioned above, if device A
>>>> and Group B has different interrupt controllers, we just need to
>>>> implement irq_chip_A and irq_chip_B and set irq_chip.irq_write_msi_msg()
>>>> to suitable callbacks.
>>>> The framework already achieves what you you want:)
>>>
>>> What if device A and group B have the same interrupt controller?
>>
>> Well, if write_msg() is different they are hardly the same.
>>
>
> The GICv3 ITS now deals with both PCI and non PCI message interrupts.
> We can't require the new devices behave writing message in a same way.
> What we can do is to abstract all the endpoints' behavior, and I
> provided one abstraction in an earlier reply.
It should be easy to extend:)
Actually, x86 interrupt remapping drivers already support two types of
MSIs, one is PCI MSI/MSIX, another is HPET interrupt.
>
> Thanks,
> Abel
>
--
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