[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180910161143.GA1053@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 09:11:43 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Anup Patel <anup@...infault.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>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.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 06:07:12PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Considering above, it is better to have a distinct irqchip and
> > irq_domain for all local interrupts (just like this patch).
>
> If that's the future usage
It's not, at least there has been no proposal for that so far, and I
don't really think it is how the architecture was intended.
> and that's what my impression was, under which I
> changed my mind, yes, then having a domain model is certainly of advantage
> especially when those things end up being different per SoC.
And even if we went down the way of using the other bits it would
be architectureal in the RISC-V spec - these are not available for
vendor specific uses.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists