On 07/10/2012 01:13 AM, Liu Shengzhou-B36685 wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wood Scott-B07421 >> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 12:39 AM >> To: Liu Shengzhou-B36685 >> Cc: bhelg...@google.com; linux-...@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc- >> d...@lists.ozlabs.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Add pcie_irq=other to enable non MSI/INTx interrupt >> for port service driver >> >> On 07/09/2012 05:49 AM, Shengzhou Liu wrote: >>> On some platforms, in RC mode, root port has neither MSI/MSI-X nor >>> INTx interrupt generated, which are available only in EP mode on those >> platform. >>> In this case, we try to use other interrupt if supported (i.e. there >>> is the shared error interrupt on platform P1010, P3041, P4080, etc) to >>> have AER, Hot-plug, etc, services to work. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Shengzhou Liu <shengzhou....@freescale.com> >>> --- >>> Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 4 ++++ >>> drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_core.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt >>> b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt >>> index a92c5eb..af97c81 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt >>> +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt >>> @@ -2218,6 +2218,10 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be >> entirely omitted. >>> nomsi Do not use MSI for native PCIe PME signaling (this makes >>> all PCIe root ports use INTx for all services). >>> >>> + pcie_irq= [PCIE] Native PCIe root port interrupt options: >>> + other Try to use other interrupt when root port has >>> + neither MSI/MSI-X nor INTx support. >> >> Why does the user need to specify this? Shouldn't this be a matter of >> communication between kernel internals? >> > > The "other interrupt" appears a non-standard interrupt way compared to > MSI/MSI-X and INTx in point of PCIe spec.
It still shouldn't be the user's responsibility to pass this in. > The intent of specifying this is to have an intervention and > confirmation manually to avoid causing unexpected issue on some > unknown platforms. > > I'm glad to remove the specified kernel parameter if it would be accepted > upstream. Hopefully someone will comment if there is harm in doing this unconditionally. If there is, then we should handle this via a quirk or similar mechanism. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
