From: Marc Zyngier [mailto:marc.zyng...@arm.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:34 PM
>>> Silly question: why cannot you just write the actual instruction >>> instead of shoving the instruction like this? Also, .inst would be >>> more appropriate... >> [Noam Camus] Since this is instruction that yet is not part of >> up-streamed binutils of ARC. Now ARC maintainer can build our kernel >> with generic ARC toolchain. >OK. If you decide to carry on using this, I'd still recommend using .inst >instead of .word, so that you can get a proper disassembly. Seem to me that ".inst" is ARM Machine directive. >Also, can you always tell the per-cpu property of your interrupt based on its >number? If you can, then it is fine. Yes I can, and I am using this knowledge. >Your alternative is to use irq_domain_add_linear, for example, and to make >sure that you always refer to the hw number when manipulating the HW. You will >quickly notice that the Linux IRQ number has nothing to do with the HW one, >and you'll be able to quickly iron out the bugs. Indeed when I moved from legacy to linear map I had to call irq_create_mapping() for my percpu IRQs and that's it. Thanks -Noam _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
