On 09/10/15 09:51, Bharat Kumar Gogada wrote: >> On 09/10/15 06:11, Bharat Kumar Gogada wrote: >>>>>> +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. >>>> >>> Sorry previously I haven't configured my email client properly so resending. >> >> Thanks for doing so, much appreciated. >> >>> 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. >> >> No, your PCI controller can perfectly be part of the PCIe node. > You meant 'msi-controller' property to be part of PCIe node? Yeah, sorry. Too early, not enough coffee. >> >>> 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'. >> >> If you want to keep them in the same file, please at least have two separate >> patches. These are two different functions, and they should be reviewed >> separately. >> > What I meant is if we don't have separate msi node do we need separate file? That's up to you. Nodes and source code files don't have to match at all. > If you meant msi controller to be part of same node then we will use single file and will > try to have two separate patches. That's fine by me. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html