Gerry,
So which direction did you take in your patch set-- a) common,
generic msi_desc, or b) bus-specific msi_desc like Marc showed
(mybus_msi_desc)?
Thanks,
Stuart
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 2015/1/16 4:35, Stuart Yoder wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> As MSI-type features are creeping into non-PCI devices, it is
>>> starting to make sense to give our struct device some form of
>>> support for this, by allowing a pointer to an MSI irq domain to
>>> be set/retrieved.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/device.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h
>>> index fb50673..ec4cee5 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/device.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/device.h
>>> @@ -690,6 +690,7 @@ struct acpi_dev_node {
>>> * along with subsystem-level and driver-level callbacks.
>>> * @pins: For device pin management.
>>> * See Documentation/pinctrl.txt for details.
>>> + * @msi_domain: The generic MSI domain this device is using.
>>> * @numa_node: NUMA node this device is close to.
>>> * @dma_mask: Dma mask (if dma'ble device).
>>> * @coherent_dma_mask: Like dma_mask, but for alloc_coherent mapping as not all
>>> @@ -750,6 +751,9 @@ struct device {
>>> struct dev_pm_info power;
>>> struct dev_pm_domain *pm_domain;
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_MSI_IRQ_DOMAIN
>>> + struct irq_domain *msi_domain; /* MSI domain device uses */
>>> +#endif
>>
>> This is not a comment on this patch specifically, but a question about other
>> MSI specific fields that might be needed in struct device.
>>
>> Currently the generic MSI domain handling has hardcoded assumptions
>> that devices are PCI-- see the for_each_msi_entry() iterator in msi.h:
>>
>> #define dev_to_msi_list(dev) (&to_pci_dev((dev))->msi_list)
>>
>> #define for_each_msi_entry(desc, dev) \
>> list_for_each_entry((desc), dev_to_msi_list((dev)), list)
>>
>> One approach would be to move the msi_list out of pci_dev and put
>> it in struct device, so all devices can have an msi_list.
>>
>> The other approach would be to keep msi_list in a bus specific
>> device struct, and then dev_to_msi_list() would need to be
>> implemented as a bus specific callback of some kind.
>>
>> The above hardcoded PCI assumption isn't going to work. Wanted to
>> see if there is any advice in which direction to go.
> Hi Stuart,
> I already have some a patch set to go that direction waiting
> send out for review:)
> Thanks!
> Gerry
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Stuart Yoder
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>>
--
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
