[Power.org:parch] Re: RFC: proposal to extend the open-pic interrupt specifierdefinition

[Grant Likely]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Yoder Stuart-B08248
<B08248 at freescale.com> wrote:
>> It does not sound sane or
>> particularly parseable to stuff it into bitfields within the second
>> cell.
>
> I think it is somewhat sane compared to the alternatives.  The
> second cell encodes information about the interrupt source.  Allowing
> some of those bits to encode information besides level/sense
> doesn't seem that difficult.

Not difficult.  Ugly, unnecessary, and sounds like a premature optimization.

>> Users have enough trouble parsing irq specifiers as is.  It makes me
>> nervous to see even more complicated irq specifiers being devised.
>
> Yes, they become slightly more complicated, but the complexity needs to
> go somewhere.

Then at the very least do it as separate cells.  Carving cells into
multiple fields is pretty ugly when cells are cheap.

g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.