Re: [PATCH 00/10] Save MSI chip in pci_sys_data
From: Bjorn Helgaas
Date: Mon Nov 17 2014 - 16:28:23 EST
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > The simplest way to dead with it is that I pull in pci/msi (assuming
>> > that it contains only the above) and base the rest of it on top, so I
>> > can deal with the resulting conflicts. So you still can keep that in
>> > your pile and no matter who sends the pull request first everything
>> > will just fall in place.
>> In addition to the ("Save MSI chip in pci_sys_data") series, my
>> pci/msi branch contains these:
>> f83386942702 s390/MSI: Use __msi_mask_irq() instead of default_msi_mask_irq()
>> 03f56e42d03e Revert "PCI: Add x86_msi.msi_mask_irq() and msix_mask_irq()"
>> 38737d82f9f0 PCI/MSI: Add pci_msi_ignore_mask to prevent writes to
>> MSI/MSI-X Mask Bits
>> but I don't think it will hurt if you pull in those as well.
> They are blessed by you, so I don't worry :)
>> The bigger problem might be the first patch of the "Save MSI chip in
>> pci_sys_data", which renames "struct msi_chip" to "struct
>> msi_controller". I asked Yijing to do that because I didn't think
>> "_chip" really conveyed any information. I didn't know we were going
>> to have quite this many MSI-related patches to fix up.
> Not a big deal at all. I pulled your branch and fixed up the pending
> mess on top of it. Not a really big deal.
>> So I'll just leave my pci/msi branch as-is for now. If the rename is
>> too painful, let me know and I'll drop the branch and we can rework
>> the rest of the "Save MSI chip in pci_sys_data" series to match.
> No, not a problem at all. If I can carry your branch and it is
> immutable then I think we are fine.
> The changes we have stashed on top of this which touch linux/msi.h and
> pci/msi.c are at the end of this mail. But most of this is
> selfcontained and wont hurt anything which does not enable the
> required config options. The diffstat is:
> drivers/pci/msi.c | 334 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> include/linux/msi.h | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 422 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
> Looks large, but it provides common infrastructure which allows ARM64
> to implement MSI support w/o any of the gazillion weak arch
> callbacks. Jiangs x86 work distangles the convoluted mess we have with
> irq remapping etc. and we can have non PCI based MSI interrupts as a
> So I'm pretty happy with the outcome now. The stacked irqdomains
> really worked out well so far. I don't think that the pci/msi.c side
> will see much updates on that in the next weeks. Though based on that
> we'll try to get rid of the whole weak arch_xxx in the long run, but
> that's a different issue and nothing we need to worry about now.
> I'm going to push out the current state of affairs soon and will ask
> all involved folks to have a look on that. If I don't hear someone
> crying murder I'm going to make the branch immutable and push it into
> next so that ARM and x86 can follow up with their stuff which depends
> on that whole endavour.
> If you have updates to your pci/msi stuff before the merge window then
> please let me know, so we can coordinate on the procedure.
Super. Thank you very much for taking care of this; it's a big weight
off my mind.
You can add my Acked-by to these patches if you want it. I would
suggest a minor comment expansion here, just because the code *looks
like* it's setting up something to match a hardware device:
> + * pci_msi_domain_calc_hwirq - Generate a unique ID for an MSI source
> + * @dev: Pointer to the PCI device
> + * @desc: Pointer to the msi descriptor
> + *
> + * The ID number is only used within the irqdomain.
Maybe include something like:
This "irq_hw_number_t" is an opaque identifier used only by the
It does not correspond to any hardware implementation or register encoding.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/