Grant Grundler wrote: Hi Grant,
Thanks for the info. Bottomline - Processor Interrupt Block not implemented on Altix. Thanks. colin > On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 05:29:13PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > ... > > An MSI should behave like a processor sending an IPI to itself since its > > address can be targeted at the processor's interrupt block and set to > > generate a local interrupt. Is that right, Tom & Grant? > > Yes - that's how I understand it too. > > > If this won't work for us, no biggie, we just have to abstract things a > > little more. We could make the MSI into a platform specific cookie that > > we can store a SHub/PIC/TIO address in and other platforms can use to > > target the processor interrupt block. > > Couple more options: > o add hooks for MSI quirk/fixup for *after* the MSI has been assigned > by generic code. > > o make sure all MSI only go to "node local" processors. I thought > platform code has some control over the CPU EID and data portion of > the MSI. But I haven't looked over that in a few monthes. > > grant > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
