Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965185AbVLWPce (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:32:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965179AbVLWPce (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:32:34 -0500 Received: from omx1-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.179.11]:13548 "EHLO omx1.americas.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965113AbVLWPcd (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:32:33 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:32:15 -0600 From: Mark Maule To: Greg KH Cc: Greg KH , linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tony Luck Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] msi abstractions and support for altix Message-ID: <20051223153215.GA11935@sgi.com> References: <20051222201651.2019.37913.96422@lnx-maule.americas.sgi.com> <20051222202259.GA4959@suse.de> <20051222202627.GI17552@sgi.com> <20051222203415.GA28240@suse.de> <20051222203824.GJ17552@sgi.com> <20051222214446.GC14978@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051222214446.GC14978@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2253 Lines: 49 On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:44:46PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 02:38:24PM -0600, Mark Maule wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 12:34:15PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 02:26:27PM -0600, Mark Maule wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 12:22:59PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 02:15:44PM -0600, Mark Maule wrote: > > > > > > Resend #2: including linuxppc64-dev and linux-pci as well as PCI maintainer > > > > > > > > > > I'll wait for Resend #3 based on my previous comments before considering > > > > > adding it to my kernel trees:) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resend #2 includes the correction to the irq_vector[] declaration, and I > > > > responded to the question about setting irq_vector[0] if that's what you > > > > mean ... > > > > > > Sorry, but I missed that last response. Why do you set the [0] value in > > > a #ifdef now? > > > > Because on ia64 IA64_FIRST_DEVICE_VECTOR and IA64_LAST_DEVICE_VECTOR > > (from which MSI FIRST_DEVICE_VECTOR/LAST_DEVICE_VECTOR are derived) are not > > constants. The are now global variables (see change to asm-ia64/hw_irq.h) > > to allow the platform to override them. Altix uses a reduced range of > > vectors for devices, and this change was necessary to make assign_irq_vector() > > to work on altix. > > I'm with Matthew on this one, that's not a real fix for this. What > would PPC64 do in this case? Using the existing framework, wouldn't PPC just define it's own assign_irq_vector and {FIRST,LAST}_DEVICE_VECTOR and handle it however it wants under the covers? I agree that this is not a great solution, but it's what the existing framework allowed. I'm willing to pursue a more general vector allocation scheme, but I suspect that'll take some time. Is this issue going to hold up forward progress of this patchset? IMO, this set is a major step in generalizing the MSI code and I think the vector generalizing code would best be handled by a separate effort. Mark Mark - 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/