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.