Re: [RFCv2 00/14]

[Grant Likely]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 14:33 -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> I've got the x86 fix in my tree now.  It will be part of the next
>> merge.  MIPS, Microblaze and OpenRISC cannot turn on CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN
>> without rework.  I just hacked together the microblaze version, but
>> Michal will have to verify that it is correct.  I just posted it.  It
>> will be similar for the other two.
>>
>> The real problem is sparc which does something entirely different for
>> irqs.  Rather than resolving irqs on-demand, it calculates the Linux
>> irq numbers at boot time for every node in the tree.  The irq_domains
>> will need to be set up for all interrupt controllers before sparc
>> begins it's big walk of the tree to resolve interrupts.  I haven't dug
>> into everything that needs to be done to support this.
>>
>> I don't think you can count on turning on IRQ_DOMAIN on all
>> architectures just yet.  Adding irq_domain support directly to
>> irq_generic_chip is going to be difficult for that reason.  However,
>> it would be useful to have an irq_domain+irq_generic_chip wrapper that
>> can be enabled only when IRQ_DOMAIN is enabled.
>
> Beware also that there are plenty of cases where 1 irq domain != 1 irq
> chip, for example on cell or xics where a single domain can encompass
> multiple chips. I don't know whether x86 APICs are the same, they could
> be tho :-)

Right, there will be some controllers using multiple irq_generic_chip
instances for a single irq_domain.  Anything with banks of irq
registers is a candidate here.

g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/