[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809101544560.1292@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:45:42 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
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, 10 Sep 2018, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 03:37:31PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > Just a few weeks ago you said the contrary:
> > > >
> > > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/2018-August/000943.html
> > >
> > > Sigh. Yes. Now that you remind me.
> >
> > Just for clarification. I had the impression that Anup was trying to wire
> > up more than just the timer interrupt, but that doesn't seem to be the
> > case.
>
> He has an irqchip that is called from the RISC-V exception handler
> when the interrupt flag is set in scause and then dispatches to one
> of: IPI, timer, actual irqchip.
So the per cpu timer is the only per cpu interrupt and that thing is used
unconditionally, right?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists