From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF8CDE025 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2007 04:02:25 +1100 (EST) To: Grant Grundler Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 4/16] Abstract MSI suspend References: <20070125083410.631EEDE277@ozlabs.org> <1170055377.19887.60.camel@concordia.ozlabs.ibm.com> <1170064058.19887.78.camel@concordia.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20070129165217.GA10992@colo.lackof.org> From: Roland Dreier Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:02:18 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Roland Dreier's message of "Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:57:53 -0800") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Kyle McMartin , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, "Eric W. Biederman" , shaohua.li@intel.com, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, "David S. Miller" , Brice Goglin List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Really? Which gigE chips are using MSI-X (as opposed to MSI)? OK, I should look before I post. But anyway a quick grep shows that the forcedeth driver does enable MSI-X for at least some devices. And a quick look at the nv_suspend() function makes me think that suspend probably won't work if MSI-X is used, since it doesn't save the MSI-X state anywhere that I can see (unless the device is magic enough to keep the MSI-X table in some sort of persistent storage, which I highly doubt). - R.