Hi Jake, In the future, please CC me on anything that touches irqdomains, along with Jiang Liu as we both co-maintain this piece of code.
On 11/09/15 01:00, ja...@microsoft.com wrote: > From: Jake Oshins <ja...@microsoft.com> > > The patch series updates the one sent about a month ago in three ways. It > integrated with other IRQ domain work done in linux-next in that time, it > distributes interrupts to multiple virtual processors in the guest VM, and it > incorporates feedback from Thomas Gleixner and others. > > These patches change the IRQ domain code so that an IRQ domain can match on > both > bus type and on the PCI domain. The IRQ domain match code is modified so that > IRQ domains can have a "rank," allowing for a default one which matches every > x86 PC and more specific ones that replace the default. I'm not really fond of this approach. We already have a way to match an IRQ domain, and that's the device node. It looks to me that you're going through a lot of pain inventing a new infrastructure to avoid divorcing the two. If you could lookup your PCI IRQ domain directly based some (non-DT) identifier, and then possibly fallback to the default one, would that help? If so, here's the deal: I have been working on a patch series that addresses the above for unrelated reasons (ACPI support on arm64). It has been posted twice already: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/358768.html and the latest version is there: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git/log/?h=irq/gsi-irq-domain-v3 I have the feeling that you could replace a lot of your patches with this infrastructure. Thoughts? M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
