On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 01:53:24PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 10/30/2015 01:35 PM, Fu Wei wrote: > >>I think maybe Mark was asking why WS1 is optional, not the WS1 > >My answer is for "why WS1 is optional"! > > > >>>interrupt. Maybe you can reword the documentation to make is clear > >>>that > >I didn't say : "only the*interrupt* for WS1 is optional." > > WS1 itself is not optional. The spec says that WS0 and WS1 are > separate events, and doesn't saying anything about either being > optional. The *interrupt* for WS1, however, is optional. This is a moot point. The distintion between the signal and the interrupt doens't matter here. I was only asking why the interrupt was optional, and it seems per the spec it's expected to be handed to an agent at a higher exception level. That implies that the OS should only care about WS0, assuming that I've understood correctly. Thanks, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
