On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 03:48:29PM +0100, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote: > On 7/17/2014 8:55 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 02:18:54PM +0100, Jason Cooper wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 06:05:00PM -0500, suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx wrote: > >>> From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> This patch set introduces support for MSI(-X) in GICv2m specification, > >>> which is implemented in some variation of GIC400. > >>> > >>> This depends on and has been tested with the V7 of"Add support for PCI in AArch64" > >>> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/14/320). > >>> > >>> Changes in V3: > >>> * Rebase to git://git.infradead.org/users/jcooper/linux.git irqchip/gic > >>> (per Jason Cooper request) > >>> * Misc fix/clean up per Mark Rutland comments > >>> * Minor Clean up in the driver/irqchip/irq-gic-v2m.c: alloc_msi_irqs() > >>> * Patch 4 is new to the series: > >>> * Add ARM64-specific version arch_setup_msi_irqs() to allow support > >>> for Multiple MSI. > >>> * Add support for Multiple MSI for GICv2m. > >>> > >>> Suravee Suthikulpanit (4): > >>> irqchip: gic: Add binding probe for ARM GIC400 > >>> irqchip: gic: Restructuring ARM GIC code > >>> irqchip: gic: Add supports for ARM GICv2m MSI(-X) > >>> irqchip: gicv2m: Add support for multiple MSI for ARM64 GICv2m > >> > >> Ok, patch #1 applied to irqchip/urgent. Patches 2 and 3 applied to > >> irqchip/gic with irqchip/urgent merged in. To facilitate > >> testing/merging, I've prepared an unsigned tag for you on the > >> irqchip/gic branch: > > > > I'm a little concerned that this is all going through for v3.17 without > > a {Reviewed,Acked}-by from Marc or anyone working with GIC{,v2m}. > > > While his comments on v1 have been addressed, he has not had a chance to > > acknowledge the solutions. I appreciate Marc's holiday is unfortunately > > timed. > > > > I also have an open concern with the binding with regard to the > > orthogonality of GICV GICH and the MSI registers. > > The MSI part is normally enabled from the optional "msi-controller" > keyword. It should not really matter which compatible ID it uses. I meant the fact that the MSI registers being described in reg[4], rather than how the driver determines MSI support. > Ooops. I noticed that was accidentally dropped the check for > "msi-controller" in the gicv2m_of_init() function. I'll send a follow > up patch to fix this. Sure. Whatever happens we should have both the msi-controller property and the registers for the MSI block before we enable MSI support. > > Suravee, do you need this urgently for v3.17? I was under the impression > > that we wouldn't have full PCIe support by then. > > > > PCI is the dependency for this patch to function. So, it should be > aligned with upstreaming of PCI patches. Ok, so it sounds like this can wait for the moment (but we should definitely ensure this gets some testing before then). Cheers, Mark -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
