Re: [PATCH 0/3] msi abstractions and support for altix

Greg KH
2005-12-22T21:44:46Z

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 02:38:24PM -0600, Mark Maule wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 12:34:15PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 02:26:27PM -0600, Mark Maule wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 12:22:59PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 02:15:44PM -0600, Mark Maule wrote:
> > > > > Resend #2: including linuxppc64-dev and linux-pci as well as PCI maintainer
> > > >
> > > > I'll wait for Resend #3 based on my previous comments before considering
> > > > adding it to my kernel trees:)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Resend #2 includes the correction to the irq_vector[] declaration, and I
> > > responded to the question about setting irq_vector[0] if that's what you
> > > mean ...
> >
> > Sorry, but I missed that last response. Why do you set the [0] value in
> > a #ifdef now?
>
> Because on ia64 IA64_FIRST_DEVICE_VECTOR and IA64_LAST_DEVICE_VECTOR
> (from which MSI FIRST_DEVICE_VECTOR/LAST_DEVICE_VECTOR are derived) are not
> constants. The are now global variables (see change to asm-ia64/hw_irq.h)
> to allow the platform to override them. Altix uses a reduced range of
> vectors for devices, and this change was necessary to make assign_irq_vector()
> to work on altix.

I'm with Matthew on this one, that's not a real fix for this. What
would PPC64 do in this case?

thanks,

greg k-h