Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:25:45 -0800 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sparse_irq aka dyn_irq v13 |
| |
Yinghai Lu wrote: > H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> Yinghai Lu wrote: >> >>> H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> >>>> Yinghai Lu wrote: >>>> >>>>> 2. make irq number is bus/devfn/idx, and every dev func will use 12bit range, irq number is relatively fixed not like current MSI irq creating is some kind of floating from NR_IRQS too. >>>>> >>>> 2 is *STILL WRONG*, dammit! >>>> >>>> You keep bringing this one up, but our PCI addressing is >>>> *DOMAIN*/bus/devfn -- it falls flat on its face when you have more than >>>> 16 PCI domains. CAN WE PLEASE STOP WITH THIS FOOLISHNESS NOW! >>>> >>> you want to u64 instead of unsigned int for irq? >>> >>> >> No, I think the whole notion of a static *numeric* identifier for an IRQ >> when it's something like MSI-X is simply pointless. I think we should >> assign IRQ numbers beyond the legacy range dynamically. >> >> I really don't think anyone gives a hoot about the IRQ number for any >> IRQ above the 0-15 legacy range, even including the "APIC" numbers 16+. >> > > you want to change ioapic/pin to irq mapping too? >
I would like to see that. I'm already doing this in the Xen dom0 code interrupt code that I posted the other day.
J
| |