On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 12:19:24PM -0500, Nguyen, Dong wrote: > You're correct. The current patch for MSI/MSI-X use the same > interrupt handler and same spinlock. For MSI-X, I am adding multiple > spinlocks and events ring for MSI-X interrupt to take advanced of > MSI-X features. Sounds good. Thanks for working on that! I'll test the MSI patch today. Sarah Sharp > -----Original Message----- > From: David Vrabel [mailto:david.vrabel@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 7:25 AM > To: Xu, Andiry > Cc: sarah.a.sharp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxx; Nguyen, Dong; Yang, Libin > Subject: Re: [PATCH] xHCI: supporting MSI/MSI-X > > 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? > > David > -- > David Vrabel, Senior Software Engineer, Drivers > CSR, Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Tel: +44 (0)1223 692562 > Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WZ http://www.csr.com/ > > > Member of the CSR plc group of companies. CSR plc registered in England and Wales, registered number 4187346, registered office Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WZ, United Kingdom > -- 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
