Hi Marc, On 11/1/18 11:00 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 07:55:12 +0000, > Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Lokesh, >> >> On 10/29/18 3:04 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote: >>>>> With the above information, linux should send a message to >>>>> system-controller using TISCI protocol. After policing the given >>>>> information, system-controller does the following: >>>>> - Attaches the interrupt(INTA input) to the device resource index >>>>> - Muxes the interrupt(INTA input) to corresponding vint(INTA output) >>>>> - Muxes the vint(INTR input) to GIC irq(INTR output). >>>> >>>> Isn't there a 1:1 mapping between *used* INTR inputs and outputs? >>>> Since INTR is a router, there is no real muxing. I assume that the >>>> third point above is just a copy-paste error. >>> >>> Right, my bad. INTR is just a router and no read muxing. >> >> INTR can mux M interrupt inputs to N interrupt outputs. >> One selects which interrupt input is outputted on the given interrupt >> output. >> It is perfectly valid (but not sane) to select the same interrupt input >> to be routed to _all_ interrupt output for example. >> >> Not sure if we are going to use this for anything but 1:1 mapping, but >> might worth keeping in mind... > > It's not obvious how you'd use this "feature". Interrupt replicator, > should one of the output be tied to another part of the system? Or > maybe that's just the result of reusing some generic block... I think the intention is that different virtualized OS would got assigned with different range of NAVSS GIC irqs and there might be a case when more than one virtualized environment need to get a GIC irq for the same virt. Timer interrupts comes to mind first, but there could be other cases when the same virt should trigger on multiple GIC line. - Peter Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki. Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki
