On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 7:44 PM Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:08:58PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: > > > They could in theory IFF someone actually get the use case through > > > the riscv privileged spec working group. > > > > Their is no point in having each and every possible local interrupts > > defined by RISC-V spec because some of these will be CPU > > implementation specific in which case these local interrupts will > > be described in platform specific DT passed to Linux. > > Again, to legally have implementation specific local interrupt types > you'll first need to convice the spec to change the status for those > fields from reserved to implementation specific.
I agree, this needs to be first clarified in RISC-V spec. May be this is a good topic for discussion in any upcoming RISC-V meetup. Until then anyone can try these patches from riscv_intc_v2 branch of https://github.com/avpatel/linux Regards, Anup
