From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.suse.de (ns.suse.de [195.135.220.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx1.suse.de", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5EFDE0DA for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 06:45:28 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:44:27 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] Powerpc MSI implementation Message-ID: <20070111194427.GA20450@kroah.com> References: <1168514716.63474.857278133999.qpush@cradle> <20070111112503.0CC1BDDF13@ozlabs.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20070111112503.0CC1BDDF13@ozlabs.org> 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: , On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 10:25:19PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Powerpc MSI implementation, based on a collection of "ops" callbacks. > We have to take the ops approach to accomodate RTAS, where firmware > handles almost all details of MSI setup/teardown. Bare-metal MSI > can be accomodated also. > > See the comments in include/asm-powerpc/msi.h for more info. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman > --- > > arch/powerpc/kernel/msi.c | 320 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/asm-powerpc/machdep.h | 6 > include/asm-powerpc/msi.h | 173 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/pci.h | 7 > 4 files changed, 506 insertions(+) > > Index: msi/arch/powerpc/kernel/msi.c Why isn't all of this in the drivers/pci/msi.c file instead? You are creating a new API here that is only availble to the PPC platform, which is not acceptable. Please work with the current MSI core code to work properly for PPC, instead of reinventing the whole thing. > +#if defined(CONFIG_PCI_MSI) && defined(CONFIG_PPC_MERGE) > +struct msi_info; > +#endif CONFIG_PPC_MERGE? What is that option for? 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. thanks, greg k-h