On Tue, Nov 18 2014 at 2:34:44 pm GMT, "Yun Wu (Abel)" <wuyun...@huawei.com>
wrote:
> On 2014/11/18 22:19, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
>>> On 2014/11/18 21:43, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>>> We provide an irq_chip for each type of interrupt controller
>>>> instead of devices. For the example mentioned above, if device A
>>>> and Group B has different interrupt controllers, we just need to
>>>> implement irq_chip_A and irq_chip_B and set irq_chip.irq_write_msi_msg()
>>>> to suitable callbacks.
>>>> The framework already achieves what you you want:)
>>>
>>> What if device A and group B have the same interrupt controller?
>>
>> Well, if write_msg() is different they are hardly the same.
>>
>
> The GICv3 ITS now deals with both PCI and non PCI message interrupts.
> We can't require the new devices behave writing message in a same way.
> What we can do is to abstract all the endpoints' behavior, and I
> provided one abstraction in an earlier reply.
This is why the framework gives you the opportunity to provide methods
that:
- compose the message
- program the message into the device
None of that has to be PCI specific, and gives you a clean
abstraction. The framework only gives you a number of shortcuts for PCI
MSI, because that's what most people care about.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
