Marc, On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 21/11/14 01:46, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > So the real question is: > > > > What is the association level requirement to properly identify the > > irqdomain for a specific device on any given architecture with and > > without IOMMU, interrupt redirection etc. > > > > To be honest: I don't know. > > > > My gut feeling tells me that it's at the device level, but I really > > leave that decision to the experts in that field. > > Given the above requirement (single device associated to DMAR), I can > see two possibilities: > - we represent DMAR as a single PCI bus: feels a bit artificial > - we move the MSI domain to the device, as you suggested. > > The second one seems a lot more attractive to me. And that's very useful if you want to support MSI on non PCI devices. > Also, it is not clear to me what is the advantage of getting rid of the > MSI controller. By doing so, we loose an important part of the topology > information (the irq domain is another level of abstraction). That was probably my misunderstanding of the msi controller. I had the impression it's just there to expose the MSI properties of a device, i.e. a magic wrapper which can be replaced by the MSI irqdomain work. If that handles other information as well, then it's probably a misnomer to begin with. Thanks, tglx -- 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
