Re: [PATCH 0/6] MSI portability cleanups

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>]

> This is the most straight forward and handles machines with really
> weird msi setups, so I lean in this direction.
> 
> The question is there anything at all we can do generically?
> 
> I can't see a case where ppc_md would not wind up with the hooks
> that decide if it is a hypervisor or not.  Even if we came up
> with a better set of functions you need to hook.

Sure, but with Michael's approach, the only hook was get_msi_ops(pdev) 

Anyway, there isn't -that- much that can be done generically in the HV
case. Mostly some argument sanity checking, the logic for saving &
restoring pdev->irq for MSIs, that sort of thing.

> Ok. I think I get the point of check.  I believe I need to look at your
> code a little more and see what you are doing to see if there is anything
> generic worth doing, that we can always do outside of architecture code
> no matter how much of the job the Hypervisor wants to do for us.

I understand.

> I'd hate to hit a different Hypervisor that did something close but
> not quite the same and have the code fail then.  So definitely
> avoiding touching pci config space at all in the calls seems to make a
> lot of sense.  This includes avoiding pci_find_capability right?

Quite possibly yes. I'm pretty sure it will work on IBM HV but we aren't
really supposed to use it...

> Off the top of my head the only things we can do generically are
> some data structure things and flags like dev->msi_enabled or
> dev->msix_enabled.

That and the saving & restoring of pdev->irq. That is not very much.

> Anyway have a nice night and more in the morning.

Ben.

-
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/