[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [virtio-comment] [PATCH v2] virtio-gpio: add formal specification
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 7:30 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 30-06-21, 17:55, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: > > On 30.06.21 17:22, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > + All the people from previous version (Please cc them yourself while sending a > > > new version, these are the people interested in this stuff). > > Adding them again, not sure why they got dropped after your email. Thanks. > > > I don't see the improvements suggested for the config structure, nothing about > > > features, no interrupt support. You just reformatted the stuff and that's all. > > > > Don't worry, I haven't forgotten that. But that's something I'd *really* > > like to have as optional features (so not all hardware is mandated to > > implement that all) and i'd like to get the mandatory base finished, > > before specifying the optional features like interrupt controller. > > > > Let's discuss the optional features separately, feel free to share your > > thoughts here. > > What about the changes to the config structure to make it efficient, > easily extendable, etc Or the Free Msg, etc? These views are already > shared in details for the earlier version and I shouldn't be expected > to explain them again. > > Over that, if you don't want to implement interrupts in your version > (I can surely send a patch for that), then you need to drop the > half-hearted interrupt support, i.e. VIRTIO_GPIO_MSG_DEVICE_LEVEL, as > that is not the right way of implementing interrupts. This will make > the specification as well as Linux or backend code messy, as we would > be required to support interrupts in two ways in this case based on > irq-feature. If you want to support interrupts, then you need to do > them properly, else don't add them at all. Agreed, interrupt support is obviously something that can not be retrofitted easily if you don't get it right from the start. > Please reply to the issues raised in the previous version itself now > and close them there. And please don't proceed with a new version > unless there is a clear consensus in favor or otherwise. It just ends > up wasting a lot of time for everyone. +1 Arnd
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]