On 31/10/18 18:38, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > On 10/31/2018 11:21 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> Hi Grygorii, >> > > [...] > >> >> Well, I'm convinced that we do not want a networking driver to be tied >> to an interrupt architecture, and that the two should be completely >> independent. But that's my own opinion. I can only see two solutions >> moving forward: >> >> 1) You make the IA a real interrupt controller that exposes real >> interrupts (one per event), and write your networking driver >> independently of the underlying interrupt architecture. >> >> 2) you make the IA an integral part of your network driver, not exposing >> anything outside of it, and limiting the interactions with the IR >> *through the standard IRQ API*. You duplicate this knowledge throughout >> the other client drivers. >> >> I believe that (2) would be a massive design mistake as it locks the >> driver to a single of the HW (and potentially a single revision of the >> firmware) while (1) gives you the required level of flexibility by >> hiding the whole event "concept" at a single location. >> >> Yes, (1) makes you rewrite your existing, out of tree drivers. Oh well... >> > My preference is also not tie the network driver with IA. BTW, this is > very standard functionality with other network drivers too. And this > is handled using MSI-X. > > So strong NO for 1) from me as well. Err. Are you opposing to (1) or (2)? From the above, I cannot really tell... ;-) M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
