From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tj@kernel.org (Tejun Heo) Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 10:39:06 -0400 Subject: [PATCH v2] AHCI: Add generic MSI-X interrupt support to SATA PCI driver In-Reply-To: <20150512114647.GN10428@rric.localhost> References: <1430725538-22162-1-git-send-email-rric@kernel.org> <20150504160652.GB1971@htj.duckdns.org> <20150511171810.GB29499@rric.localhost> <20150512114647.GN10428@rric.localhost> Message-ID: <20150513143906.GV11388@htj.duckdns.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello, On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 01:46:47PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > I don't think this is worth the effort as all internal and external > drivers need to be changed basically from: > > ahci_host_activate(host, irq, &ahci_sht); > > to: > > host->irq = irq; > ahci_host_activate(host, &ahci_sht); > > This looks not very useful to do. Since irq is used only a single > time, there is no reason to store it in the host's data structure. It Doesn't really matter tho. > also makes the interface more error prone since host->irq might not be > setup. Apart from that there is an abi change. But large part of @host needs to be initialized before activation. I don't think moving irq to that pool changes much if anything. > I agree that we will need the implemention of host->ports[i]->irq for > the case there irqs are no longer in sequential order as this might be > the case for per-port msi-x interrupts. But this is not the focus of > my implementation and as long there is no hardware for this available, > it wouldn't make sense to implement this at all. Why are we doing msix at all? I don't get it. > So how to proceed? I could send you patches that implement host->irq > for a single per-host interrupt, and also one that reworks multi-port > interrupts to use host->ports[i]->irq. But I don't see any benefit > here. That said, I would better keep my patch here as it is. That do > you think? Let's start with why we're doing this in the first place. Thanks. -- tejun