On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:28 AM, Christoph Hellwig <h...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:39:01AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: >> Previously submitted driver, registered separate irq_domain for >> each CPU and local IRQs were registered as regular IRQs to IRQ >> subsystem. >> (Refer, https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg241230.html) > > And we reject that driver approach for good reason and are now > doing the architectualy low-level irq handling in common code > without any need whatsover to duplicate information in the > privileged spec in DT.
In other words, the whole idea of separate RISCV local interrupt controller driver was dropped due duplicate information in privilege spec DT ?? Anyway, I think we should certainly have RISCV local interrupt controller driver to manage local IRQs using Linux IRQ subsystem. This gives us future flexibility in having more per-CPU IRQ without changing any arch/riscv code. Based on ARM examples which I had provided, it is very likely that we will see more per-CPU IRQs in future. Some of these will be device IRQs and some will be CPU specific per-CPU IRQs (such as bus error interrupts). Regards, Anup
