Hi, Thomas
I will continue to revise my patch according to the document requirements.
Regarding "WHY", my understanding is that a convincing reason is needed
to explain the necessity of this patch.
If so, can the last paragraph "This will be more conducive to fully
utilizing existing vectors to support more devices."
be considered a simple explanation?
在 2024/3/20 下午6:52, Thomas Gleixner 写道:
On Tue, Mar 19 2024 at 20:46, Tianyang Zhang wrote:
From: Baoqi Zhang <zhangbaoqi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
This patch remove the fixed mapping between the LS7A interrupt source
Please don't use 'This patch'. We already know that this is a patch.
See Documentation/process/
and the HT interrupt vector, and replaced it with a dynamically
allocated approach.
You explain the WHAT, but you really need to explain the WHY.
We introduce a mapping table in struct pch_pic, where each interrupt
s/We introduce/Introduce/ See documentation.
source will allocate an index as a 'hwirq' from the table in the order
of application and set table value as interrupt source number. This hwirq
will be configured as its vector in the HT interrupt controller. For an
interrupt source, the validity period of the obtained hwirq will last until
the system reset.
This will be more conducive to fully utilizing existing vectors to
support more devices.
Signed-off-by: Baoqi Zhang <zhangbaoqi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Biao Dong <dongbiao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
This Signed-off-by chain is wrong.
Please see Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
Thanks,
tglx
