Warner and mmel just got to the PR before I got a chance to address a few tiny nits but what got committed is fine with me. Thanks for double checking Mark!
On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 2:19 PM Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2024, 7:01 PM Mark Millard <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> From: Warner Losh <imp_at_FreeBSD.org> wrote on >> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 13:19:21 UTC : >> >> > The branch main has been updated by imp: >> > >> > URL: >> > https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=85918beb387f179abc93a6c613801fb9761ff1e2 >> > >> > commit 85918beb387f179abc93a6c613801fb9761ff1e2 >> > Author: Ayrton Munoz <a.munoz3...@gmail.com> >> > AuthorDate: 2024-07-21 18:10:20 +0000 >> > Commit: Warner Losh <i...@freebsd.org> >> > CommitDate: 2024-09-22 13:18:34 +0000 >> > >> > intrng: Add support for multiple interrupt roots >> > >> > Different types of interrupts may require using different exception >> > vectors so this commit adds support multiple interrupt roots to handle >> > these cases. Archs may opt-in to multiple interrupt roots by defining >> > INTR_ROOT_NUM as the number of roots in their intr.h. Based off >> > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D40161. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Ayrton Munoz <a.munoz3...@gmail.com> >> > Co-authored-by: Kyle Evans <kev...@freebsd.org> >> > Co-authored-by: Andrew Turner <and...@freebsd.org> >> > Reviewed-by: imp,mmel,mhorne >> > Pull-Request: https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/pull/1363 >> . . . >> > +/* >> > + * Archs may define multiple roots with INTR_ROOT_NUM to support >> > different kinds >> > + * of interrupts (e.g. arm64 FIQs which use a different exception vector >> > than >> > + * IRQs). >> > + */ >> > +#if !defined(INTR_ROOT_NUM) >> > +#define INTR_ROOT_NUM 1 >> > +#endif >> > + >> >> . . . >> >> When I was reading the: >> >> https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/pull/1363 >> >> conversation I saw: >> >> -#define INTR_ROOT_NUM 2 >> +#define INTR_ROOT_COUNT 2 >> >> and related discussion with 2 thumbs up, including one by ayrtonm. >> >> A similar point goes for: >> >> -void *arg, uint32_t rootnum) >> +void *arg, uint32_t roottype) >> >> with another ayrtonm thumbs up at the end. (I've not checked >> if there are more distinctions.) >> >> Such leaves me wondering if what was committed was actually >> the final intended code: Is it? > > > I thought it was... If we need a fllowup, i can do that... > > Warner > >> === >> Mark Millard >> marklmi at yahoo.com >>
