From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suravee Suthikulanit Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 V3] irqchip: gicv2m: Add support for multiple MSI for ARM64 GICv2m Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 09:36:51 -0500 Message-ID: <53DBA603.9030509@amd.com> References: <1404947104-21345-1-git-send-email-suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> <1404947104-21345-5-git-send-email-suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> <87vbqej2rj.fsf@approximate.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87vbqej2rj.fsf@approximate.cambridge.arm.com> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Marc Zyngier Cc: Mark Rutland , "jason@lakedaemon.net" , Pawel Moll , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "Harish.Kasiviswanathan@amd.com" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 7/30/2014 10:16 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Why do we need this complexity at all? Is there any case where we'd want > to limit ourselves to a single vector for MSI? I think the ARM64 GICv2m should not be the limitation for the devices multiple MSI if there is no real hardware/design limitation. > arm64 is a new enough architecture so that we can expect all interrupt controllers to cope > with that. I am not sure if I understand this comment. We are not forcing all interrupt controllers for ARM64 to handle multi-MSI. They have the option to support if multi-MSI if they want to. I just think that we should not put the architectural limit here. Thanks, Suravee