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 23:22:54 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        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: <20180911062254.GA23395@infradead.org>
References: <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>
 <20180910221902.GB7368@infradead.org>
 <CAAhSdy2uAqOQohmx_HDgR1MbtWeOdc0MTFxToMK2Ak9-za1evg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAhSdy2uAqOQohmx_HDgR1MbtWeOdc0MTFxToMK2Ak9-za1evg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 09:27:45AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> The list of currently defined RISC-V local interrupts will definitely grow
> based on my experience from ARM/ARM64 world.
> 
> Like Thomas mentioned, we will definitely end-up having separate
> irqchip and irq_domain for RISC-V local interrupts for flexibility. Better
> do it now with separate RISC-V INTC driver.

I disagree.  Just because arm made a mess of their irq handling there
is no need to repeat mistakes by paving their way.  IFF we end up
with a convoluted mess like arm in the end we'll need an irqchip,
and as your series has shown that is fairly easily doable.  But I'd
rather spend my effort on it not becoming a mess in the first place
rather than helping the mess.