From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sunset.davemloft.net (unknown [74.93.104.97]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8797DE4E1 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:44:54 +1100 (EST) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:44:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20070128.154453.112622887.davem@davemloft.net> To: ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] MSI portability cleanups From: David Miller In-Reply-To: References: <1170015805.26655.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45BD0BDC.40205@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: tony.luck@intel.com, grundler@parisc-linux.org, jeff@garzik.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kyle@parisc-linux.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, brice@myri.com, greg@kroah.com, shaohua.li@intel.com, mingo@elte.hu, 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: , From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:20:12 -0700 > I see people pushing ridiculous interfaces like the RTAS hypervisor > interface at me, and saying we must support running firmware drivers > in the msi code. This is not what's going on. The hypervisor does the PCI config space programming on the device to setup the MSI so that it can be done in a controlled manner and such that the device cannot ever be configured by one domain to shoot MSI packets over at devices which belong to another domain. It's that simple. That's absolutely reasonable, and is I believe what you'll see the sparc64 hypervisor(s) all needing as well.