From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Mark Maule <maule@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] msi vector targeting abstractions
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:56:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051221185637.GA13210@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051221184348.5003.7540.53186@attica.americas.sgi.com>
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:42:41PM -0600, Mark Maule wrote:
> Abstract portions of the MSI core for platforms that do not use standard
> APIC interrupt controllers. This is implemented through a set of callouts
> which default to current behavior, but which can be overridden by calling
> msi_register_callouts() in the platform msi init code.
we tend to calls these _ops or _operations instead of _callouts.
Also I'd suggest to not keep the generic ones where they are but
in a separate file and let the existing plattforms calls msi_register()
with the ops table for those. This keeps the interface symmetric instead
of favouring the first implementation.
> @@ -89,10 +91,25 @@
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +static void msi_target_generic(unsigned int vector,
> + unsigned int dest_cpu,
> + uint32_t *address_hi, /* in/out */
> + uint32_t *address_lo) /* in/out */
Please try to use u32 instead of uint32_t everywhere. Dito for other
sizes and signed types.
> +{
> + struct msg_address address;
> +
> + address.lo_address.value = *address_lo;
> + address.lo_address.value &= MSI_ADDRESS_DEST_ID_MASK;
> + address.lo_address.value |> + (cpu_physical_id(dest_cpu) << MSI_TARGET_CPU_SHIFT);
> +
> + *address_lo = address.lo_address.value;
> +}
Why do we need the full struct msg_address here? What about just:
static void msi_target_apic(unsigned int vector, unsigned int dest_cpu,
u32 *address_hi, u32 *address_lo)
{
u32 addr = *address_lo;
addr &= MSI_ADDRESS_DEST_ID_MASK;
addr |= (cpu_physical_id(dest_cpu) << MSI_TARGET_CPU_SHIFT);
*address_lo = addr;
}
> + (*msi_callouts.msi_teardown)(vector);
> +
just
msi_ops.teardown(vector);
> +union msg_data {
> + struct {
> #if defined(__LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
> - __u32 vector : 8;
> - __u32 delivery_mode : 3; /* 000b: FIXED | 001b: lowest prior */
> - __u32 reserved_1 : 3;
> - __u32 level : 1; /* 0: deassert | 1: assert */
> - __u32 trigger : 1; /* 0: edge | 1: level */
> - __u32 reserved_2 : 16;
> + __u32 vector : 8;
> + __u32 delivery_mode : 3; /* 000b: FIXED */
> + /* 001b: lowest prior */
> + __u32 reserved_1 : 3;
> + __u32 level : 1; /* 0: deassert | 1: assert */
> + __u32 trigger : 1; /* 0: edge | 1: level */
> + __u32 reserved_2 : 16;
> #elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
> - __u32 reserved_2 : 16;
> - __u32 trigger : 1; /* 0: edge | 1: level */
> - __u32 level : 1; /* 0: deassert | 1: assert */
> - __u32 reserved_1 : 3;
> - __u32 delivery_mode : 3; /* 000b: FIXED | 001b: lowest prior */
> - __u32 vector : 8;
> + __u32 reserved_2 : 16;
> + __u32 trigger : 1; /* 0: edge | 1: level */
> + __u32 level : 1; /* 0: deassert | 1: assert */
> + __u32 reserved_1 : 3;
> + __u32 delivery_mode : 3; /* 000b: FIXED */
> + /* 001b: lowest prior */
> + __u32 vector : 8;
> #else
> #error "Bitfield endianness not defined! Check your byteorder.h"
> #endif
> + }u;
> + __u32 value;
> } __attribute__ ((packed));
While you're cleaning things up, could you please kill the horrible abuse
of bitfields for H/W structures and do proper masking instead.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-21 18:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-21 18:42 [PATCH 0/4] msi abstractions and support for altix Mark Maule
2005-12-21 18:42 ` [PATCH 1/4] msi archetecture init hook Mark Maule
2005-12-21 18:53 ` Matthew Wilcox
2005-12-21 19:03 ` Mark Maule
2005-12-21 19:40 ` Matthew Wilcox
2005-12-21 18:42 ` [PATCH 2/4] msi vector targeting abstractions Mark Maule
2005-12-21 18:56 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2005-12-21 19:17 ` Mark Maule
2005-12-21 19:05 ` Matthew Wilcox
2005-12-21 19:17 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2005-12-21 19:33 ` Mark Maule
2005-12-22 10:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-12-22 13:59 ` Mark Maule
2005-12-21 18:42 ` [PATCH 3/4] per-platform IA64_{FIRST,LAST}_DEVICE_VECTOR definitions Mark Maule
2005-12-21 19:09 ` Matthew Wilcox
2005-12-21 19:18 ` Mark Maule
2005-12-21 19:32 ` Matthew Wilcox
2005-12-22 6:26 ` Keith Owens
2005-12-22 13:14 ` Matthew Wilcox
2005-12-21 18:42 ` [PATCH 4/4] altix: msi support Mark Maule
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20051221185637.GA13210@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maule@sgi.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox