On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 12:24 PM Piotr Stankiewicz
<piotr.stankiew...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Seeing as there is shorthand available to use when asking for any type
> of interrupt, or any type of message signalled interrupt, leverage it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Piotr Stankiewicz <piotr.stankiew...@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_irq.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_irq.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_irq.c
> index 5ed4227f304b..6dbe173a9fd4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_irq.c
> @@ -251,11 +251,11 @@ int amdgpu_irq_init(struct amdgpu_device *adev)
> int nvec = pci_msix_vec_count(adev->pdev);
> unsigned int flags;
>
> - if (nvec <= 0) {
> + if (nvec > 0)
> + flags = PCI_IRQ_MSI_TYPES;
> + else
> flags = PCI_IRQ_MSI;
> - } else {
> - flags = PCI_IRQ_MSI | PCI_IRQ_MSIX;
> - }
> +
> /* we only need one vector */
> nvec = pci_alloc_irq_vectors(adev->pdev, 1, 1, flags);
I'm not sure if you have seen my last comment internally about this patch.
I don't understand why we need these pci_msix_vec_count() followed by
conditional at all.
Perhaps we may simple drop all these and supply flag directly?
But OTOH, I don't know the initial motivation, so, the above patch is
non-intrusive and keeps original logic.
> if (nvec > 0) {
> --
> 2.17.2
>
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
