RE: [PATCH v3] PCI: Xilinx-NWL-PCIe: Added support for Xilinx NWL PCIe Host Controller

[Bharat Kumar Gogada]

On 06/10/15 17:27, Bharat Kumar Gogada wrote:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: Xilinx-NWL-PCIe: Added support for Xilinx 
> NWL PCIe Host Controller

[...]

>> +struct nwl_msi {			/* struct nwl_msi - MSI information */
>> +	struct msi_controller chip;	/* chip: MSI controller */
> 
>> We're moving away from msi_controller altogether, as the kernel now 
>> has all the necessary infrastructure to do this properly.
> 
> Our current GIC version does not have separate msi controller (we are 
> not using GICv2m or GICv3), so is it necessary to have separate msi 
> controller node ? Please give me clarity on this.

This has nothing to do with the version of the GIC you are using (XGene doesn't have GICv2m or v3 either). This is about reducing code duplication and having something that we can maintain. See also
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/20/193 for yet another example.

I still plan to kill msi_controller, and I'd like to avoid more dependencies with it. MSI domains are the way to do it.

Since we don't have separate MSI controller, and our PCIe controller is handling MSI, is it necessary to create a separate MSI controller node because we don't have any 'reg' space. 
Please let me know whether we require a separate msi file as suggested in your previous comments to separate MSI controller and PCIE controller in two files, if we don't have separate node. 
If we do not need a separate node do we need to embed MSI controller child node  in PCIe controller node itself, and what properties does this child node will require other than 'interrupts'.

Bharat

Thanks,

	M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
--
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/