On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 07/08/2019 14:56, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > 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). Right. @Intel: Is there documentation and perhaps early code for that IMS muck to look at? Thanks, tglx
