Impact: cleanup, spec compliance
This patch does:
- Remove unused msi/msix_enable/disable macros.
User should use msi/msix_set_enable() functions instead.
- Remove unused msix_mask/unmask/pending macros.
These macros are useless because they are not based on any of
the PCI Local Bus Specifications properly.
It seems that they were written based on a draft of PCI spec,
and that the draft was the MSI-X ECN that underwent membership
review in September 2002.
(* In the draft, the size of a entry in MSI-X table was 64bit,
containing 32bit message data and DWORD aligned lower address
plus a pending bit and a mask bit.(30+1+1bit) The higher
address was placed in MSI-X capability structure and shared
by all entries.)
- Remove PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_BITMASK.
This definition also come from the draft ECN.
Signed-off-by: Hidetoshi Seto <[email protected]>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <[email protected]>
---
drivers/pci/msi.h | 8 +-------
include/linux/pci_regs.h | 1 -
2 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/msi.h b/drivers/pci/msi.h
index 71f4df2..4fed592 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/msi.h
+++ b/drivers/pci/msi.h
@@ -19,18 +19,12 @@
( (is64bit == 1) ? base+PCI_MSI_DATA_64 : base+PCI_MSI_DATA_32 )
#define msi_mask_bits_reg(base, is64bit) \
( (is64bit == 1) ? base+PCI_MSI_MASK_BIT : base+PCI_MSI_MASK_BIT-4)
-#define msi_disable(control) control &= ~PCI_MSI_FLAGS_ENABLE
#define is_64bit_address(control) (!!(control & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_64BIT))
#define is_mask_bit_support(control) (!!(control & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_MASKBIT))
#define msix_table_offset_reg(base) (base + 0x04)
#define msix_pba_offset_reg(base) (base + 0x08)
-#define msix_enable(control) control |= PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_ENABLE
-#define msix_disable(control) control &= ~PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_ENABLE
#define msix_table_size(control) ((control & PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_QSIZE)+1)
-#define multi_msix_capable msix_table_size
-#define msix_unmask(address) (address & ~PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_BITMASK)
-#define msix_mask(address) (address | PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_BITMASK)
-#define msix_is_pending(address) (address & PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_PENDMASK)
+#define multi_msix_capable(control) msix_table_size((control))
#endif /* MSI_H */
diff --git a/include/linux/pci_regs.h b/include/linux/pci_regs.h
index e4d08c1..ad57aa8 100644
--- a/include/linux/pci_regs.h
+++ b/include/linux/pci_regs.h
@@ -304,7 +304,6 @@
#define PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_ENABLE (1 << 15)
#define PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_MASKALL (1 << 14)
#define PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_BIRMASK (7 << 0)
-#define PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_BITMASK (1 << 0)
/* CompactPCI Hotswap Register */
--
1.6.2.2
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:54:52AM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
> - Remove unused msi/msix_enable/disable macros.
> User should use msi/msix_set_enable() functions instead.
I don't think they were ever intended for drivers; I think they were
supposed to be helper macros for msi.c. Regardless, deleting them is
the right thing to do.
> - Remove unused msix_mask/unmask/pending macros.
> These macros are useless because they are not based on any of
> the PCI Local Bus Specifications properly.
> It seems that they were written based on a draft of PCI spec,
> and that the draft was the MSI-X ECN that underwent membership
> review in September 2002.
> (* In the draft, the size of a entry in MSI-X table was 64bit,
> containing 32bit message data and DWORD aligned lower address
> plus a pending bit and a mask bit.(30+1+1bit) The higher
> address was placed in MSI-X capability structure and shared
> by all entries.)
I think you're right. Unfortunately, the old MSI-X ECN was actually
incorporated into a version of the PCI 3.0 spec -- I have a document
here named pci3.0-081202.pdf which has exactly the layout you describe.
So it probably gained wider currency than it should have.
> - Remove PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_BITMASK.
> This definition also come from the draft ECN.
Yep.
> Signed-off-by: Hidetoshi Seto <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."