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 8A35BDDE05 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:57:53 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] Powerpc MSI implementation From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Greg KH In-Reply-To: <20070112231317.GC665@kroah.com> References: <1168514716.63474.857278133999.qpush@cradle> <20070111112503.0CC1BDDF13@ozlabs.org> <20070111194427.GA20450@kroah.com> <1168550403.22458.414.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1168552498.22458.428.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070112231317.GC665@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:57:43 +1100 Message-Id: <1168667863.5011.44.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: , > No, what's wrong with just fixing everything up to work properly all at > once? The Altix code should have been a step forward in making this > "abstracted" into something that other arches could use. If that's not > true, then please work everything so that it all works nicely together. > > In short, I don't want to see two different implementations in the tree > at the same time, that's not acceptable, sorry. So you are saying that despite the current stuff being beyond repair, we can't provide an alternate working implementation that fits our needs unless we also port over Altic and Intel, which we don't know and don't have testing gear, not even within our arch code ? So you are trying to make sure PowerPC doesn't get MSI support until next year or what ? Ben.