[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r1hlg9uq.mognet@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 11:25:33 +0100
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 08/10] irqchip/gic-v3-its: Use irq_chip_ack_parent()
On 27/05/21 13:17, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2021 18:32:53 +0100,
> Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com> wrote:
>> o make irq_chip_ack_parent() the default chip->irq_ack() via
>> MSI_FLAG_USE_DEF_CHIP_OPS.
>
> Seem like a reasonable approach: how about a custom irq_ack() callback
> that iterates over the hierarchy until it finds an a non-NULL entry?
> Flows that don't use ack won't be impacted, users that need ack will
> provide one if they want, and the default will do something slightly
> slower, but at least unsurprising.
>
Sounds about right!
>> XXX: what about pMSI and fMSI ?
>
> Same thing. They are just bus-specific domains on top of the ITS
> domain, and must follow the same convention.
>
> However, this patch is perfectly acceptable to me (as long as you take
> care of platform and fsl -MSI).
>
Noted.
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists