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 ESMTPS id A5101B6FD7 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:55:07 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <1338792897.7150.68.camel@pasglop> Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: pseries: Round up MSI-X requests From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Michael Ellerman Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:54:57 +1000 In-Reply-To: <1338792215.15716.5.camel@concordia> References: <20120604091545.03ce738b@kryten> <1338792215.15716.5.camel@concordia> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, Anton Blanchard List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 16:43 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > There is some chance this will result in breakage because the driver > asks for N - and assumes that is what was allocated - and the device is > configured for > N. We can fix that. We can whack the configuration back with N, just know that we have "allocated" > N. > But that's a hypothetical, and we know the current approach sucks > because it will result in many drivers falling back to a single > interrupt. > > I think this is the least-worst approach in light of the FW limitations, > and we can always add quirks in here if we really have to. > > Paul is the pseries maintainer so he gets to ACK or NAK it, but from an > MSI point of view it gets my +1. > Cheers, Ben.