From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B77DDEF7 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:20:27 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] Powerpc MSI implementation From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Greg KH In-Reply-To: <20070111194427.GA20450@kroah.com> References: <1168514716.63474.857278133999.qpush@cradle> <20070111112503.0CC1BDDF13@ozlabs.org> <20070111194427.GA20450@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:20:02 +1100 Message-Id: <1168550403.22458.414.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , Olof Johannsson , linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > So, no, I don't agree with this implementation and don't want to see it > go through anyone's tree into mainline just yet. So why, when we posted it earlier, you said the exact opposite ? That you actually liked it and wanted to see it as a replacement of the current cruft ? That's been the logic from day one. We implement a generic MSI support that supports multiple backends, we do it as a powerpc version at first since that's what we can actively test and provide backends for, then as a second step, we work with the intel folks to port their stuff over to our implementation and replace the current crappy generic one. Ben.