On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: > On Thu, 5 May 2011, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> > As for the mapping, I agree that the functionality is generally >> > useful, I'm just not fond of the current implementation. I think it >> > is more complex than it needs to be and I'm not excited about bring it >> > over to the other architectures as-is. >> >> Nobody cares about the current implementation. What is important is >> indeed the functionality. The basic thing I think everybody agrees is >> that you need to extend the irq_desc (or data, whatever tglx prefers) >> with two bits of information: Some identifier of the domain and some >> identifier of the interrupt number within that domain. > > irq_data because that's what is handed into the callbacks and you > probably want to have the HW number there.
Okay, I'll take another hack at it. Unfortunately I've got a great big unmaskable interrupt in the form of UDS next week, but I'll be back on it the week after. g. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
