I would prefer if we did something like the proposal I posted to arch, https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2015-July/017270.html. It allows us to mark interrupts as needing to be unmasked on all cpus.

I like the idea of doing sth generic. What is your ETA on this?
If it takes more than 2-3 weeks maybe it'd be good to submit anything that gives us support for PPIs and revert it once an elegant solution is done? I mean this patch or even port an ugly hack from gic.c, whatever, since it'd be only temporary. Without this, the GICv3 combined with SMP is pretty useless.
Andrew, Ed, what do you think?

In D3132#64982, @wma_semihalf.com wrote:

I like the idea of doing sth generic. What is your ETA on this?
If it takes more than 2-3 weeks maybe it'd be good to submit anything that gives us support for PPIs and revert it once an elegant solution is done? I mean this patch or even port an ugly hack from gic.c, whatever, since it'd be only temporary. Without this, the GICv3 combined with SMP is pretty useless.

I tend to agree with you. I really want to see all of the changes necessary to support ThunderX as soon as possible, as we'll soon have new silicon in the Sentex colo and can then open the system up to wider use. But it really comes down the potential timeline for the final solution.