From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: benh@kernel.crashing.org To: Gabriel Paubert Cc: Val Henson , Subject: Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:18:26 +0100 Message-Id: <20020326121826.22174@mailhost.mipsys.com> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: > >Won't fly, this is a byte wide register and there are machines with more >than 256 interrupt lines. And they are even more likely with PCI 2.2+ so >called message passing interrupts, which is a simple way to admit that the >way of doing interrupts was so dumb that even (one physical PCB trace per >vector) the Cro-Magnon man would have done better Well, I would expect such machines to have a device-tree :) Anyway, a bi_rec would indeed help if really needed here but again, it's optional and I would expect embedded not to require it for PCI routing. >Basically, PCI is going to implement interrupts in the way similar to waht >VME/m68k (and even Z80) hardware have done for over 25 years. The >electrical details are different, but it is the device that puts the >interrupt vector on the bus, not some PIC (where P stands for >paleolithic) through a maze of PCB traces. > >BTW, I don't even allow sharing VME interrupt vectors in my PCI<->VME >bridge driver, because I have something like 1792 (7*256) separately >identifiable interrupt sources. Ben. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/