On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 03:24:51PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> Andiry Xu wrote:
> > + for (i = 0; i < xhci->msix_count; i++) {
> > + fn = (irq_handler_t)xhci_msi_irq;
> > + ret = request_irq(xhci->msix_entries[i].vector,
> > + fn, 0, "xhci_hcd", xhci_to_hcd(xhci));
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto disable_msix;
> > + }
>
> Are multiple vectors useful if they all use the same interrupt handler
> that locks the same spinlock?
This patch is also less useful because it doesn't add a new event ring
per MSI-X interrupter. (Each USB device's events can be directed to a
different event ring.) Making each interrupt handler use a different
spinlock doesn't make sense until we give each interrupter a separate
event ring to process.
Andiry, does using MSI or MSI-X save any power or have any other
benefit?
Sarah Sharp
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
