Re: [PATCH v2] [ARM] gic: Unmask private interrupts on all coresduring IRQ enable

[Stephen Caudle]

On 11/30/2010 01:07 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Sorry, missed this.
>
> If it's a private peripheral, it can only be accessed from its associated
> CPU.  What that means is you don't want to enable the interrupt on other
> CPUs as the peripheral may not be present or initialized on that CPU.

Understood.  But the alternative is to require all code that requests a 
PPI to have to enable the IRQ on the other cores.  This seems 
unreasonable to me.

> So I'm nervous about this change - architecturally it feels like the
> wrong thing to do to take the PPI interrupts through the generic IRQ
> infrastructure.

What do suggest as an alternative to this solution?  Creating separate 
IRQ numbers for each core (per PPI) doesn't seem to scale well as the 
number of cores increase.

~Stephen

--
Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
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/