Messages in this thread | | | From | Anup Patel <> | Date | Mon, 10 Sep 2018 22:05:42 +0530 | Subject | Re: [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
| |