On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 01:38:25PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote: > On 09/09/14 03:06, Yijing Wang wrote: > > On 2014/9/5 22:29, David Vrabel wrote: > >> On 05/09/14 11:09, Yijing Wang wrote: > >>> Use MSI chip framework instead of arch MSI functions to configure > >>> MSI/MSI-X irq. So we can manage MSI/MSI-X irq in a unified framework. > >> [...] > >>> --- a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c > >>> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c > >> [...] > >>> @@ -418,9 +430,9 @@ int __init pci_xen_init(void) > >>> #endif > >>> > >>> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MSI > >>> - x86_msi.setup_msi_irqs = xen_setup_msi_irqs; > >>> - x86_msi.teardown_msi_irq = xen_teardown_msi_irq; > >>> - x86_msi.teardown_msi_irqs = xen_teardown_msi_irqs; > >>> + xen_msi_chip.setup_irqs = xen_setup_msi_irqs; > >>> + xen_msi_chip.teardown_irqs = xen_teardown_msi_irqs; > >>> + x86_msi_chip = &xen_msi_chip; > >>> msi_chip.irq_mask = xen_nop_msi_mask; > >>> msi_chip.irq_unmask = xen_nop_msi_mask; > >> > >> Why have these not been changed to set the x86_msi_chip.mask/unmask > >> fields instead? > > > > Hi David, x86_msi_chip here is struct msi_chip data type, used to configure MSI/MSI-X > > irq. msi_chip above is struct irq_chip data type, represent the MSI irq controller. They are > > not the same object. Their name easily confusing people. > > Ok, it all makes sense now. > > Acked-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> You can also add 'Tested-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>' on the whole series - I ran it through on Xen and on baremetal with a mix of 32/64 builds. Oh, and also Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> the Xen parts. > > David > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
