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 32F4DDDEC0 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:14:01 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:13:17 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] Powerpc MSI implementation Message-ID: <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1168552498.22458.428.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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 Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 08:54:57AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 08:20 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > 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. > > /me calms down a bit ... :-) > > Ok, so what about we do: > > - Move that new implementation to drivers/pci > - Have a CONFIG_NEW_MSI or something like that to select between > the old and the new implementation > - Have the change to pci_dev be based on that config option 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. thanks, greg k-h