On 07/08/2019 14:56, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Megha, > > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, Megha Dey wrote: >> On Sat, 2019-06-29 at 09:59 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019, Megha Dey wrote: >> >> Totally agreed. The request to add a dynamic MSI-X infrastructure came >> from some driver teams internally and currently they do not have >> bandwidth to come up with relevant test cases. <sigh> > > Hahahaha. > >> But we hope that this patch set could serve as a precursor to the >> interrupt message store (IMS) patch set, and we can use this patch set >> as the baseline for the IMS patches. > > If IMS needs the same functionality, then we need to think about it > slightly differently because IMS is not necessarily tied to PCI. > > IMS has some similarity to the ARM GIC ITS stuff IIRC, which already > provides these things outside of PCI. Marc? Indeed. We have MSI-like functionality almost everywhere, and make heavy use of the generic MSI framework. Platform-MSI is probably the most generic example we have (it's the Far West transposed to MSIs). > We probably need some generic infrastructure for this so PCI and everything > else can use it. Indeed. Overall, I'd like the concept of MSI on whatever bus to have one single behaviour across the board, as long as it makes sense for that bus (nobody needs another PCI MultiMSI, for example). Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
