> -----Original Message----- > From: Bryan O'Donoghue [mailto:pure.lo...@nexus-software.ie] > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 7:29 PM > Hi Wilson. > > Seeing you post now on the PCI emumeration suggestion from Dave Miller I > see > > I wasn't copied on this https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/27/190 thread so can > only respond now.... > > What's missing from your MSI enabling code is the PVM mask/unmask > required on the Quark X1000 bridge - for *all* downstream devices using MSI. > > I realise it's not an upstreaming friendly piece of code - however - without > the PVM mask operation all MSIs on Quark should be considered unreliable. > > Maybe you guys have submitted patches to the PCI layer on this already ? > If so feel free to ignore. > > If not then please re-evaluate all MSI enabling code. > > From the original > > http://downloadmirror.intel.com/23171/eng/Board_Support_Package_Sour > ces_for_Intel_Quark_v1.0.0.7z > > +#if defined(CONFIG_INTEL_QUARK_X1000_SOC) > + #define mask_pvm(x) qrk_pci_pvm_mask(x) > + #define unmask_pvm(x) qrk_pci_pvm_unmask(x) #else > + #define mask_pvm(x) > + #define unmask_pvm(x) > +#endif > + > static irqreturn_t stmmac_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id) > { > struct net_device *dev = (struct net_device *)dev_id; @@ -1601,10 > +1686,12 @@ static irqreturn_t stmmac_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id) > return IRQ_NONE; > } > > + mask_pvm(priv->pdev); > + > /* To handle GMAC own interrupts */ > if (priv->plat->has_gmac) { > - int status = priv->hw->mac->host_irq_status((void __iomem > *) > - dev->base_addr); > + int status = priv->hw->mac->host_irq_status(priv); > + > if (unlikely(status)) { > if (status & core_mmc_tx_irq) > priv->xstats.mmc_tx_irq_n++; > @@ -1634,6 +1721,8 @@ static irqreturn_t stmmac_interrupt(int irq, void > *dev_id) > /* To handle DMA interrupts */ > stmmac_dma_interrupt(priv); > > + unmask_pvm(priv->pdev); > + > return IRQ_HANDLED; > }
Hi Bryan, The MSI masking is already implemented in the MSI framework: http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/pci/msi.c#L181. I don't see a reason to upstream a local set implementation to Ethernet subsystem. Thanks. Regards, Wilson -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
