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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809101533330.1292@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809101536410.1292@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20180910133902.GB21593@infradead.org> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809101544560.1292@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20180910134915.GB30774@infradead.org> <CAAhSdy1be_ibiowifBdgBZjbHuFU=CR4rZXQDwQghVYkex5bMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180910161328.GA13171@infradead.org> <CAAhSdy2Y-XTZ12i5aV+SzraMZP1YQBhAArpER-YssPcBJNOPOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180910163543.GA13052@infradead.org> <CAAhSdy2PSLjrtmSbkJ4w-v-zWm2hjii3XL6HE5Pe7u3wz4BmZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180917141436.GB2821@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180917141436.GB2821@infradead.org>
From:   Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
Date:   Mon, 17 Sep 2018 19:58:21 +0530
Message-ID: <CAAhSdy1gD3tZLmBzfpJV1qQKsG4GKgLkoBC7v5Kycw8KX+YeLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] irqchip: RISC-V Local Interrupt Controller Driver
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        "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>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 7:44 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> 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