Monday, June 06, 2005 10:16 PM Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 06:09:11PM -0700, Andrew Vasquez wrote:
> > * What if the driver writer does not want MSI enabled for their
> > hardware (even though there is an MSI capabilities entry)?
Reasons
> > include: overhead involved in initiating the MSI; no support in
some
> > versions of firmware (QLogic hardware).
> Yes, a very good point. I guess I should keep the pci_enable_msi()
and
> pci_disable_msi() functions exported for this reason.
That is one of the reason we like to have a driver to call explicitly
either pci_enable_msi() or pci_enable_msix() since its device may
support either or both MSI capability structure and MSI-X capability
structure. Once either MSI or MSI-X is enabled, the existing code does
not allow a driver to switch back and forth between MSI and MSI-X.
In addition, if you plan to enable MSI by default, then new function
pci_in_msi_mode is redundant because pci_enable_msi() always returns
zero if MSI was already enabled on a device. In this case, a driver must
use MSI, not MSI-X. As a result, I still prefer to have a driver to
explicitly call pci_enable_msi().
Thanks,
Long
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]