[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180910163543.GA13052@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 09:35:43 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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 10:02:09PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> You are thinking very much in-context of SiFive CPUs only.
No. I think in terms of the RISC-V spec. I could care less about
SiFive to be honest.
> Lot of SOC vendors are trying to come-up with their own CPUs
> and RISC-V spec does not restrict the use of local interrupts.
Yes, it does.
> The mie/mip/sie/sip/uie/uip are all machine word size so on
> riscv64 we can theoretically have maximum 64 local interrupts.
They could in theory IFF someone actually get the use case through
the riscv privileged spec working group.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists