[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180904185001.GA25119@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 11:50:02 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] RISC-V: Make IPI triggering flexible
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 06:15:10PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> The mechanism to trigger IPI is generally part of interrupt-controller
> driver for various architectures. On RISC-V, we have an option to trigger
> IPI using SBI or SOC vendor can implement RISC-V CPU where IPI will be
> triggered using SOC interrupt-controller (e.g. custom PLIC).
Which is exactly what we want to avoid, and should not make it easy.
The last thing we need is non-standard whacky IPI mechanisms, and
that is why we habe SBI calls for it. I think we should simply
stat that if an RISC-V cpu design bypasse the SBI for no good reason
we'll simply not support it.
So NAK for this patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists