Hello, On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 01:46:47PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > I don't think this is worth the effort as all internal and external > drivers need to be changed basically from: > > ahci_host_activate(host, irq, &ahci_sht); > > to: > > host->irq = irq; > ahci_host_activate(host, &ahci_sht); > > This looks not very useful to do. Since irq is used only a single > time, there is no reason to store it in the host's data structure. It Doesn't really matter tho. > also makes the interface more error prone since host->irq might not be > setup. Apart from that there is an abi change. But large part of @host needs to be initialized before activation. I don't think moving irq to that pool changes much if anything. > I agree that we will need the implemention of host->ports[i]->irq for > the case there irqs are no longer in sequential order as this might be > the case for per-port msi-x interrupts. But this is not the focus of > my implementation and as long there is no hardware for this available, > it wouldn't make sense to implement this at all. Why are we doing msix at all? I don't get it. > So how to proceed? I could send you patches that implement host->irq > for a single per-host interrupt, and also one that reworks multi-port > interrupts to use host->ports[i]->irq. But I don't see any benefit > here. That said, I would better keep my patch here as it is. That do > you think? Let's start with why we're doing this in the first place. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
