From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jackey Shen Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mmc: sdhci: supporting PCI MSI Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:00:12 +0800 Message-ID: <20131113060011.GB3755@ubuntu.amd.com> References: <1384239413-7027-1-git-send-email-Jackey.Shen@amd.com> <5281DC68.3080606@intel.com> <20131112092716.GA7285@ubuntu.amd.com> <5282CDE2.60500@intel.com> <20131113055508.GA3755@ubuntu.amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Received: from va3ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com ([216.32.180.12]:52216 "EHLO va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751505Ab3KMGBA (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 01:01:00 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131113055508.GA3755@ubuntu.amd.com> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Aaron Lu Cc: alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com, manuel.lauss@googlemail.com, hanfi@spahan.ch, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, mcuos.com@gmail.com, Ray.Huang@amd.com On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:55:08PM +0800, Jackey Shen wrote: > > >> What about we only call pci_enable_msi in sdhci-pci.c and then assign > > >> host->irq appropriately before calling sdhci_add_host, will that work? > > >> The only difference would be, request_irq will have SHARED flag, but I > > >> suppose that's not a problem. > > >> > > > There are 2 points for this part: > > > 1. fall back to legacy interrupt right after MSI request fails; > > > > If we call pci_enable_msi somewhere in sdhci_pci_probe_slot, then if it > > failed, we can also fall back I suppose? > > > Yes, it is. > But, sdhci_pci_disable_msi should be kept since pci_disable_msi is > pci bus releted and better not used in sdhci.c. > So, enable msi and disable msi are NOT symmetric in style. > What's your opinion? Sorry for missing word. So, enable msi and disable msi are NOT symmetric in style. Thanks, Jackey