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 E5FE6DDE00 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 09:43:29 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] MPIC U3/U4 MSI backend From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Johannes Berg In-Reply-To: <1178614502.18162.34.camel@johannes.berg> References: <20070508025843.0D93ADDEFD@ozlabs.org> <1178614502.18162.34.camel@johannes.berg> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 09:43:14 +1000 Message-Id: <1178667794.14928.126.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 10:55 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 12:58 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > MPIC U3/U4 MSI backend. Based on code from Segher, heavily hacked by me. > > This only deals with MSI on U3/U4 MPICs, aka. CPC 9x5. > > > > If we find a U3/U4 then we enable this backend, ie. take over the ppc_md > > MSI hooks. We might need more elaborate logic in future to decide which > > backend is enabled. > > > > We need our own irq_chip so that we can do MSI masking/unmasking on > > the device itself. We also need to mask explicitly on shutdown to make > > sure we don't get bitten by lazy-disable semantics. > > How badly will this clash with my patch that implements suspend/resume > for mpic, and will I need to do more suspend/resume for this? Maybe... for now, don't bother, we'll do fixups later on. I think your patch can be done differently and more simply. I don't think we need to save/restore all this state, we can proably reconfigure everything with what we have. Ben.