Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:19:02 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] irqchip: RISC-V Local Interrupt Controller Driver
Message-ID: <20180910221902.GB7368@infradead.org>
References: <20180910133902.GB21593@infradead.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809101544560.1292@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20180910134915.GB30774@infradead.org>
 <CAAhSdy1be_ibiowifBdgBZjbHuFU=CR4rZXQDwQghVYkex5bMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809101805110.1419@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20180910161143.GA1053@infradead.org>
 <CAAhSdy0kgsy0QFDQGYeVy6vxu8v7UwRGbdJC9Hhz+36TNYjyGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180910163936.GA18699@infradead.org>
 <CAAhSdy3AN4YTaAJCR50WMB8CgaoZNeT9uOZt2GH2O6i8Y6z6ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809102133240.1419@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809102133240.1419@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:37:59PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Processor local interrupts really should be architected and there are
> really not that many of them.

And that is what they are.

> But well, RISC-V decided obvsiouly not to learn from mistakes made by
> others.

I don't think that is the case.  I think Atup misreads what reserved
means - if you look at section 2.3 of the RISC-V privileged spec
it clearly states that reserved fields are for future use and not
for vendor specific use.