From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.parisc-linux.org (palinux.external.hp.com [192.25.206.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.parisc-linux.org", Issuer "CAcert Class 3 Root" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C9E667CB4 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 07:07:35 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:07:30 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 4/7] Powerpc MSI implementation Message-ID: <20061107200730.GY27140@parisc-linux.org> References: <1162884080.585336.70559261997.qpush@cradle> <20061107072125.68E9F67CA7@ozlabs.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20061107072125.68E9F67CA7@ozlabs.org> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, "Eric W.Biederman" , linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, "David S.Miller" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 06:21:23PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > We currently (ab)use the pci_dev to store our msi_info structure. We > were hoping to stash it in the pci_dn, but that's not a goer, so the > pci_dev seems like the right place, even though it seems naughty to > bloat generic structs. We have the per-irq void *chip_data; could this be the right place to keep it instead? That way, it won't take up space in the pci_dev for devices which don't use MSI. Or do you rely on mpic_from_irq() working for MSI interrupts too?