[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 09/10] irqchip: ti-sci-inta: Add support for Interrupt Aggregator driver
On 10/31/2018 11:42 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 31/10/18 18:38, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On 10/31/2018 11:21 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Hi Grygorii,
>> [...]
>>> Well, I'm convinced that we do not want a networking driver to be tied
>>> to an interrupt architecture, and that the two should be completely
>>> independent. But that's my own opinion. I can only see two solutions
>>> moving forward:
>>> 1) You make the IA a real interrupt controller that exposes real
>>> interrupts (one per event), and write your networking driver
>>> independently of the underlying interrupt architecture.
>>> 2) you make the IA an integral part of your network driver, not exposing
>>> anything outside of it, and limiting the interactions with the IR
>>> *through the standard IRQ API*. You duplicate this knowledge throughout
>>> the other client drivers.
>>> I believe that (2) would be a massive design mistake as it locks the
>>> driver to a single of the HW (and potentially a single revision of the
>>> firmware) while (1) gives you the required level of flexibility by
>>> hiding the whole event "concept" at a single location.
>>> Yes, (1) makes you rewrite your existing, out of tree drivers. Oh well...
>> My preference is also not tie the network driver with IA. BTW, this is
>> very standard functionality with other network drivers too. And this
>> is handled using MSI-X.
>> So strong NO for 1) from me as well.
> Err. Are you opposing to (1) or (2)? From the above, I cannot really
> tell... ;-)
I mixed it up, sorry. I meant NO for (2), i.e No for making IA part of
the network driver.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-31 19:50    [W:0.073 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site