lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/5] irqchip: RISC-V Local Interrupt Controller Driver
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 9:41 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> 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.

I am quite sure RISC-V spec does not restrict the use of other
local interrupts. Different CPU implementations can have their
own local interrupts.

Regards,
Anup

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-10 18:36    [W:0.086 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site