Re: [PATCH] sparse_irq aka dyn_irq v13

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 15:59 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
> No, I think the whole notion of a static *numeric* identifier for an IRQ
> when it's something like MSI-X is simply pointless.  I think we should
> assign IRQ numbers beyond the legacy range dynamically.

Yup, exactly. Which is what we do on other platforms :-)

I think there is some value in getting rid of the irq_desc static array,
and to a certain extend having the ability to have irq_desc's be per-cpu
allocated but I think that patch tries to mix up way too many different
things, including a dubious attempt at tying the interrupt subsystem
into a specific implementation choice of x86 platforms for numbering.

Linux interrupts should just be a dynamically allocated number space,
with an exception for the 16 first ones (0 = illegal, 1...15 = legacy)
and that should be -separate- from the actual HW number of one on a
given PIC. In fact, powerpc handles multiple HW interrupt domain numbers
just fine that way which is very useful for embedded platforms with
funky cascaded PIC setups..
 
Ben.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/