From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [RFC] powerpc: cell interrupt controller updates From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Arnd Bergmann In-Reply-To: <200601180020.17301.arnd@arndb.de> References: <200601172028.01013.arnd@arndb.de> <1137533707.4823.106.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200601180020.17301.arnd@arndb.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:27:22 +1100 Message-Id: <1142922442.12137.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Jens Osterkamp , stk@de.ibm.com, Milton Miller , Paul Mackerras , hpenner@de.ibm.com, linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 00:20 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > The interrupt-parent relationship between the spider and iic controllers > is just an approximation, each spider pic can also send interrupts to any > other interrupt controller in the system (all six of them, if you count > the SMT threads as separate interrupt targets), but for best performance, it > is usually wise to use local interrupt delivery. We could either express that by having a new property that we could call "multiple-parents" or something like that with a list of parents... or we could have a "virtual" iic that is a single controller in the device-tree (the later makes a lot of sense I think) with sub-nodes for the actual iic's to be used maybe by the iic driver for probing... I still need to think about that one though.. Ben.