Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933578AbaJVXxx (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:53:53 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172]:49873 "EHLO mail-ie0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754669AbaJVXxt (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:53:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:53:45 -0600 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Yijing Wang Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Xinwei Hu , Wuyun , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Russell King , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, arnab.basu@freescale.com, Bharat.Bhushan@freescale.com, x86@kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Thomas Gleixner , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Joerg Roedel , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Sebastian Ott , Tony Luck , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Chris Metcalf , Ralf Baechle , Lucas Stach , David Vrabel , Sergei Shtylyov , Michael Ellerman , Thierry Reding , Thomas Petazzoni , Liviu Dudau Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 24/27] IA64/MSI: Use MSI chip framework to configure MSI/MSI-X irq Message-ID: <20141022235345.GE4795@google.com> References: <1413342435-7876-1-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> <1413342435-7876-25-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1413342435-7876-25-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:07:12AM +0800, 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. This needs slightly more detail. You're using the MSI chip framework "instead of arch MSI functions". Well, there are still arch-specific functions, i.e., arch_ia64_setup_msi_irq() and arch_ia64_teardown_msi_irq(). We used to have arch_setup_msi_irq() which had a weak default implementation, and a strong arch-specific implementation here, and you're replacing that model with the new "msi-ops" model. I don't know how you want to write that, but it's not that you're getting rid of the arch-specific code; you're keeping arch-specific code but structuring it differently. > Signed-off-by: Yijing Wang > --- > arch/ia64/include/asm/pci.h | 10 ++++++++++ > arch/ia64/kernel/msi_ia64.c | 14 ++++++++++---- > arch/ia64/pci/pci.c | 1 + > 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/ia64/include/asm/pci.h b/arch/ia64/include/asm/pci.h > index 52af5ed..907dcba 100644 > --- a/arch/ia64/include/asm/pci.h > +++ b/arch/ia64/include/asm/pci.h > @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ struct pci_controller { > int segment; > int node; /* nearest node with memory or NUMA_NO_NODE for global allocation */ > > + struct msi_chip *msi_chip; > void *platform_data; > }; > > @@ -101,6 +102,15 @@ struct pci_controller { > #define PCI_CONTROLLER(busdev) ((struct pci_controller *) busdev->sysdata) > #define pci_domain_nr(busdev) (PCI_CONTROLLER(busdev)->segment) > > +extern struct msi_chip chip; Please make this name more descriptive. "chip" is way too generic for a global name. > +static inline struct msi_chip *pci_msi_chip(struct pci_bus *bus) > +{ > + struct pci_controller *ctrl = bus->sysdata; > + > + return ctrl->msi_chip; > +} > + > extern struct pci_ops pci_root_ops; > > static inline int pci_proc_domain(struct pci_bus *bus) > diff --git a/arch/ia64/kernel/msi_ia64.c b/arch/ia64/kernel/msi_ia64.c > index 8c3730c..401fc98 100644 > --- a/arch/ia64/kernel/msi_ia64.c > +++ b/arch/ia64/kernel/msi_ia64.c > @@ -112,15 +112,16 @@ static struct irq_chip ia64_msi_chip = { > }; > > > -int arch_setup_msi_irq(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct msi_desc *desc) > +static int arch_ia64_setup_msi_irq(struct msi_chip *chip, > + struct pci_dev *dev, struct msi_desc *desc) > { > if (platform_setup_msi_irq) > - return platform_setup_msi_irq(pdev, desc); > + return platform_setup_msi_irq(dev, desc); > > - return ia64_setup_msi_irq(pdev, desc); > + return ia64_setup_msi_irq(dev, desc); Please don't make gratuitous changes ("pdev" -> "dev") at the same time, especially since the rest of the file still uses "pdev". > } > > -void arch_teardown_msi_irq(unsigned int irq) > +static void arch_ia64_teardown_msi_irq(struct msi_chip *chip, unsigned int irq) > { > if (platform_teardown_msi_irq) > return platform_teardown_msi_irq(irq); > @@ -128,6 +129,11 @@ void arch_teardown_msi_irq(unsigned int irq) > return ia64_teardown_msi_irq(irq); > } > > +struct msi_chip chip = { > + .setup_irq = arch_ia64_setup_msi_irq, > + .teardown_irq = arch_ia64_teardown_msi_irq, > +}; > + > #ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > static int dmar_msi_set_affinity(struct irq_data *data, > diff --git a/arch/ia64/pci/pci.c b/arch/ia64/pci/pci.c > index 291a582..299b67d 100644 > --- a/arch/ia64/pci/pci.c > +++ b/arch/ia64/pci/pci.c > @@ -437,6 +437,7 @@ struct pci_bus *pci_acpi_scan_root(struct acpi_pci_root *root) > > controller->companion = device; > controller->node = acpi_get_node(device->handle); > + controller->msi_chip = &chip; > > info = kzalloc(sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL); > if (!info) { > -- > 1.7.1 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/