[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180910221902.GB7368@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:19:02 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] irqchip: RISC-V Local Interrupt Controller Driver
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:37:59PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Processor local interrupts really should be architected and there are
> really not that many of them.
And that is what they are.
> But well, RISC-V decided obvsiouly not to learn from mistakes made by
> others.
I don't think that is the case. I think Atup misreads what reserved
means - if you look at section 2.3 of the RISC-V privileged spec
it clearly states that reserved fields are for future use and not
for vendor specific use.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists