Re: [PATCH] x86 PCI: Do not use interrupt links for devices using MSI-X

Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-01-07T18:13:27Z

On Wednesday 07 January 2009, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 7, 2009 5:13 am Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 5, 2009 5:04 am Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > > > >
> > > > > pcibios_enable_device() and pcibios_disable_device() don't handle
> > > > > IRQs for devices that have MSI enabled and it should tread the
> > > >
> > > > s/tread/treat
> > > >
> > > > > devices with MSI-X enabled in the same way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > arch/x86/pci/common.c | 4 ++--
> > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > looks good - Jesse, what do you think?
> > >
> > > Yeah, seems obviously correct, I'll queue it up.
> > >
> > > > Rafael, i'm curious is this in response to some regression/bug? Did
> > > > some box or driver get confused by us enabling/disabling the GSI? Some
> > > > IRQ flood perhaps?
> > > >
> > > > btw., there's a small observation:
> > > > > + if (!dev->msi_enabled && !dev->msix_enabled)
> > > >
> > > > maybe a "pci_has_gsi_irq()" wrapper would make these checks cleaner and
> > > > would make things more robust, should there be any new IRQ delivery
> > > > method be introduced in the future?
> > >
> > > pci_has_msi_irq surely? Otherwise we'll catch pretty much everything?
> > > Or did you mean !pci_has_gsi_irq() here instead?
> >
> > Well - here the check is: "if (not MSI or MSIX)" in essence. I thought
> > that it might be confusing to call it _msi() as well, so we could approach
> > it via the inverse space: general system interrupts (GSIs) - which are
> > device irqs that are neither MSI nor MSIX.
> >
> > But if pci_has_msi_irq() can cleanly include the MSIX portion too, that's
> > fine too. (MSI-X is really MSI with wider eventing capabilities but
> > otherwise non-GSI just as much - and we dont want to enable (or even
> > touch) the legacy IRQ line registers for any of them, even if they happen
> > to be enumerated)
> >
> > Right?
>
> Right, I see where you're coming from. However, I've queued up Rafael's last
> patch with some fixes for dev vs. pci_dev and a name collision
> (pci_msi_enabled -> pci_dev_msi_enabled). Bjorn caught the fact that some
> other arches may want similar treatment too, I think Rafael is checking that
> out.

Yes, I am.

Thanks,
Rafael