On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:55:08PM +0800, Jackey Shen wrote: > > >> What about we only call pci_enable_msi in sdhci-pci.c and then assign > > >> host->irq appropriately before calling sdhci_add_host, will that work? > > >> The only difference would be, request_irq will have SHARED flag, but I > > >> suppose that's not a problem. > > >> > > > There are 2 points for this part: > > > 1. fall back to legacy interrupt right after MSI request fails; > > > > If we call pci_enable_msi somewhere in sdhci_pci_probe_slot, then if it > > failed, we can also fall back I suppose? > > > Yes, it is. > But, sdhci_pci_disable_msi should be kept since pci_disable_msi is > pci bus releted and better not used in sdhci.c. > So, enable msi and disable msi are NOT symmetric in style. > What's your opinion? Sorry for missing word. So, enable msi and disable msi are NOT symmetric in style. Thanks, Jackey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
