On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > (Adding AceLan) > > Daniel Drake <drake@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Daniel Drake <drake@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Can't be fixed in firmware, but it would be good to have confirmation >>>>> of the hardware behavivour, and maybe some other solution is possible? >>>>> Are you following this up within Qualcomm? >>>> >>>> No time to do that right now, sorry. >>> >>> I got several autoresponders from people on this thread from Qualcomm >>> Taiwan. Would it be useful for us to drop off a sample of the affected >>> product at your Taipei or Hsinchu office so that you can investigate >>> further? >> >> Ping - how can we collaborate on this? > > Are you asking me? While looking at my todo list for this year I doubt I > can find time to help with the MSI implementation or bugfixing. > > But my plan is that first I would apply Russel's patch which makes it > possible to enable MSI with a module parameter: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9999249/ Just in case it was missed during review: The variables like + bool msi_enabled; usually are redundant because PCI core keeps track of MSI/MSI-X status (enabled/disabled) So, if there is no MSI-X involved or MSI-X is handled in the same way as MSI in the driver, one can use pci_dev_msi_enabled() instead. > Are everyone happy with this plan? Sounds reasonable. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
