lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/5] RISC-V: Make IPI triggering flexible
From
On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 11:50:02 PDT (-0700), Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 06:15:10PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
>> The mechanism to trigger IPI is generally part of interrupt-controller
>> driver for various architectures. On RISC-V, we have an option to trigger
>> IPI using SBI or SOC vendor can implement RISC-V CPU where IPI will be
>> triggered using SOC interrupt-controller (e.g. custom PLIC).
>
> Which is exactly what we want to avoid, and should not make it easy.
>
> The last thing we need is non-standard whacky IPI mechanisms, and
> that is why we habe SBI calls for it. I think we should simply
> stat that if an RISC-V cpu design bypasse the SBI for no good reason
> we'll simply not support it.

I agree. Hiding this sort of stuff is the whole point of the SBI.

Anup: do you have some concrete reason for trying to avoid the SBI? If it's
just to add non-standard interrupt controllers then I don't think that's a
sufficient reason, as you can just add support for whatever the non-standard
interrupt mechanism is in the SBI implementation -- that's what we're doing
with BBL's CLINT driver, though there's not a whole lot of wackiness there so
at least the SBI implementation is pretty small.

> So NAK for this patch.

Certainly without a compelling reason, and even then I'd only want to take some
standard interrupt controller -- for example, the CLIC (or whatever the result
of the fast interrupts task group is called) could be a viable option. Even
with a standard interrupt controller, we'd need a really compelling reason to
do so.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-06 11:46    [W:0.068 / U:2.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site