On Wed, 2019-08-07 at 15:18 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > 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). > Ok I will have a look at the platform-msi code. > > > > 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). Yeah, agreed. > > Thanks, > > M.
