Re: [PATCH][0/2] RTAS MSI

[Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1488 bytes --]

On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 17:41 +0200, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > So I think we could have pci_enable_msi(dev), which would enable a
> > single MSI _or_ MSI-X vector, depending on what's available. That'd be
> > used by drivers that just want a simple replacement for LSI. And then
> > pci_enable_multi_msi(dev, num_irqs) which would give the driver num_irqs
> > MSI or MSI-X vectors.
> 
> You cannot lie and have pci_enable_msi() enable an MSI-X vector. Some
> cards need additional tweaking when enabling MSI or MSI-X and if the
> system enables MSI-X while the driver thinks it's MSI, bad things might
> happen.

Hmm. As I read the PAPR the firmware calls may do just that (pp 122).
ie. it doesn't differentiate between MSIs and MSI-Xs as far as I can
tell. So if we implement pci_enable_msi() via the RTAS calls we might be
violating that constraint.

> pci_enable_msi() should call the firmware to reconfigure for only one
> MSI and enable just that. MSI-X is the only really sexy thing anyway
> (that and a way to spread MSI-X accross CPUs from the kernel but that's
> another topic)

And the current implementation doesn't do that either, so we should fix
it to only allocate 1 MSI, regardless of what firmware has set.

cheers

-- 
Michael Ellerman
IBM OzLabs

wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au
phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)

We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]