On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 03:29:58PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2012-05-28 15:21, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 02:51:25PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> On 2012-05-28 14:39, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:02:13AM -0300, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>>> According to Alexey, the T310 does not properly support INTx masking as > >>>> it fails to keep the PCI_STATUS_INTERRUPT bit updated once the interrupt > >>>> is masked. Mark this adapter as broken so that pci_intx_mask_supported > >>>> won't report it as compatible. > >>>> > >>>> Reported-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxx> > >>> > >>> > >>> Just a thought: would be nice to have a way to discover > >>> the quirk was activated. Add an attribute so that > >>> userspace can detect and report this properly to users? > >>> Or just log a warning message ... > >> > >> pr_notice_once? > > > > OK IMO. > > > >> A flag for userspace would be significantly more > >> complicated (and not PCI layer hands). > > > > Why not? I meant e.g. an attribute in pci-sysfs. > > Possible. But what is the preferred way of doing this? Are there any > precedences? > > Jan > E.g. a reset attribute is there only if device reset is supported. I don't insist on this - merely asking how does userspace report an attempt to share IRQs and whether the reason is discoverable in some way. -- MST -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
