On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
> On 2014/11/12 21:42, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > +int irq_chip_compose_msi_msg(struct irq_data *data, struct msi_msg *msg)
> > +{
> > + struct irq_data *pos = NULL;
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY
> > + for (; data; data = data->parent_data)
> > +#endif
> > + if (data->chip && data->chip->irq_compose_msi_msg)
> > + pos = data;
> > + if (!pos)
> > + return -ENOSYS;
> > +
> > + pos->chip->irq_compose_msi_msg(pos, msg);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> Adding message composing routine to struct irq_chip is OK to me, and it should
> be because it is interrupt controllers' duty to compose messages (so that they
> can parse the messages correctly without any pre-defined rules that endpoint
> devices absolutely need not to know).
> However a problem comes out when deciding which parameters should be passed to
> this routine. A message can associate with multiple interrupts, which makes me
> think composing messages for each interrupt is not that appropriate. And we
> can take a look at the new routine irq_chip_compose_msi_msg(). It is called by
> msi_domain_activate() which will be called by irq_domain_activate_irq() in
> irq_startup() for each interrupt descriptor, result in composing a message for
> each interrupt, right? (Unless requiring a judge on the parameter @data when
> implementing the irq_compose_msi_msg() callback that only compose message for
> the first entry of that message. But I really don't like that...)
No, that's not correct. You are looking at some random stale version
of this. The current state of affairs is in
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git irq/irqdomain
See also https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/17/764
In activate we write the message, which is the right point to do so.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
