From: Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com> To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>, "bhelgaas@google.com" <bhelgaas@google.com>, "lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>, "Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com" <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com>, "jingoohan1@gmail.com" <jingoohan1@gmail.com>, "adouglas@cadence.com" <adouglas@cadence.com>, "niklas.cassel@axis.com" <niklas.cassel@axis.com>, "jesper.nilsson@axis.com" <jesper.nilsson@axis.com> Cc: "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC 06/10] misc: pci_endpoint_test: Add MSI-X support Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 16:36:42 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <ac362508-8322-e4f0-fb70-d0b76198c7bc@synopsys.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <aa1c6446-bcf4-1cdb-d900-22e5d6fa4cab@ti.com> Hi Kishon, On 24/04/2018 12:43, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > Hi, > > On Tuesday 24 April 2018 04:27 PM, Gustavo Pimentel wrote: >> Hi Kishon, >> >> On 24/04/2018 08:19, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tuesday 17 April 2018 11:08 PM, Gustavo Pimentel wrote: >>>> Hi Kishon, >>>> >>>> On 17/04/2018 11:33, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday 10 April 2018 10:44 PM, Gustavo Pimentel wrote: >>>>>> Adds the MSI-X support and updates driver documentation accordingly. >>>>>> >>>>>> Changes the driver parameter in order to allow the interruption type >>>>>> selection. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Documentation/misc-devices/pci-endpoint-test.txt | 3 + >>>>>> drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c | 102 +++++++++++++++++------ >>>>>> 2 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/misc-devices/pci-endpoint-test.txt b/Documentation/misc-devices/pci-endpoint-test.txt >>>>>> index 4ebc359..fdfa0f6 100644 >>>>>> --- a/Documentation/misc-devices/pci-endpoint-test.txt >>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/misc-devices/pci-endpoint-test.txt >>>>>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ The PCI driver for the test device performs the following tests >>>>>> *) verifying addresses programmed in BAR >>>>>> *) raise legacy IRQ >>>>>> *) raise MSI IRQ >>>>>> + *) raise MSI-X IRQ >>>>>> *) read data >>>>>> *) write data >>>>>> *) copy data >>>>>> @@ -25,6 +26,8 @@ ioctl >>>>>> PCITEST_LEGACY_IRQ: Tests legacy IRQ >>>>>> PCITEST_MSI: Tests message signalled interrupts. The MSI number >>>>>> to be tested should be passed as argument. >>>>>> + PCITEST_MSIX: Tests message signalled interrupts. The MSI-X number >>>>>> + to be tested should be passed as argument. >>>>>> PCITEST_WRITE: Perform write tests. The size of the buffer should be passed >>>>>> as argument. >>>>>> PCITEST_READ: Perform read tests. The size of the buffer should be passed >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c b/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c >>>>>> index 37db0fc..a7d9354 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c >>>>>> @@ -42,11 +42,16 @@ >>>>>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_COMMAND 0x4 >>>>>> #define COMMAND_RAISE_LEGACY_IRQ BIT(0) >>>>>> #define COMMAND_RAISE_MSI_IRQ BIT(1) >>>>>> -#define MSI_NUMBER_SHIFT 2 >>>>>> -/* 6 bits for MSI number */ >>>>>> -#define COMMAND_READ BIT(8) >>>>>> -#define COMMAND_WRITE BIT(9) >>>>>> -#define COMMAND_COPY BIT(10) >>>>>> +#define COMMAND_RAISE_MSIX_IRQ BIT(2) >>>>>> +#define IRQ_TYPE_SHIFT 3 >>>>>> +#define IRQ_TYPE_LEGACY 0 >>>>>> +#define IRQ_TYPE_MSI 1 >>>>>> +#define IRQ_TYPE_MSIX 2 >>>>>> +#define MSI_NUMBER_SHIFT 5 >>>>> >>>>> Now that you are anyways fixing this, add a new register entry for MSI numbers. >>>>> Let's not keep COMMAND and MSI's together. >>>> >>>> What you suggest? >>> >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_COMMAND 0x4 >>> #define COMMAND_RAISE_LEGACY_IRQ BIT(0) >>> #define COMMAND_RAISE_MSI_IRQ BIT(1) >>> #define COMMAND_RAISE_MSIX_IRQ BIT(2) >>> #define COMMAND_READ BIT(3) >>> #define COMMAND_WRITE BIT(4) >>> #define COMMAND_COPY BIT(5) >>> >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_STATUS 0x8 >>> #define STATUS_READ_SUCCESS BIT(0) >>> #define STATUS_READ_FAIL BIT(1) >>> #define STATUS_WRITE_SUCCESS BIT(2) >>> #define STATUS_WRITE_FAIL BIT(3) >>> #define STATUS_COPY_SUCCESS BIT(4) >>> #define STATUS_COPY_FAIL BIT(5) >>> #define STATUS_IRQ_RAISED BIT(6) >>> #define STATUS_SRC_ADDR_INVALID BIT(7) >>> #define STATUS_DST_ADDR_INVALID BIT(8) >>> >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_LOWER_SRC_ADDR 0xc >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_UPPER_SRC_ADDR 0x10 >>> >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_LOWER_DST_ADDR 0x14 >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_UPPER_DST_ADDR 0x18 >>> >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_SIZE 0x1c >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_CHECKSUM 0x20 >>> >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_MSI_NUMBER 0x24 >> >> Ok. I will do it. >> >>> >>> We should try not to modify either the existing register offsets or the bit >>> fields within these registers in the future as EP and RC will be running on >>> different systems and it is possible one of them might not have the updated >>> kernel. >> >> I totally agree. >> >>>> >>>>>> +/* 12 bits for MSI number */ >>>>>> +#define COMMAND_READ BIT(17) >>>>>> +#define COMMAND_WRITE BIT(18) >>>>>> +#define COMMAND_COPY BIT(19) >>>>> >>>>> This change should be done along with the pci-epf-test in a single patch. >>>> >>>> To be clear, you're saying is this patch should be just be squashed into the >>>> patch number 8 [1], because there is a lot of dependencies namely the defines, >>>> that is used on the alter functions. >>>> >>>> [1] -> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__patchwork.ozlabs.org_patch_896841_&d=DwIC-g&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=bkWxpLoW-f-E3EdiDCCa0_h0PicsViasSlvIpzZvPxs&m=8urVwHCybXa1XMxsEbwHZAzzaEI_HJGXqmWgXpXb9TY&s=MRVr2YPY2Bk_WNFOxBfU4FGrFReTKdPhfzNDLiVxDbs&e= >>> >>> yeah. We have to make sure git bisect doesn't break functionality. >> >> Ok, it'll be squashed. >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_STATUS 0x8 >>>>>> #define STATUS_READ_SUCCESS BIT(0) >>>>>> @@ -73,9 +78,9 @@ static DEFINE_IDA(pci_endpoint_test_ida); >>>>>> #define to_endpoint_test(priv) container_of((priv), struct pci_endpoint_test, \ >>>>>> miscdev) >>>>>> >>>>>> -static bool no_msi; >>>>>> -module_param(no_msi, bool, 0444); >>>>>> -MODULE_PARM_DESC(no_msi, "Disable MSI interrupt in pci_endpoint_test"); >>>>> >>>>> Let's not remove this just to make sure existing users doesn't get affected. >>>> >>>> Hum, by making an internal conversion? Like this >>>> no_msi = false <=> irq_type = 1 >>>> no_msi = true <=> irq_type = 0 >>> >> Disregard previous comment, it doesn't make sense. I don't know where my head was. >> >> It will be like this on probe: >> >> if (no_msi) >> irq_type = IRQ_TYPE_LEGACY; >> >> However since we are breaking the compatibility on terms of MSI/MSI-X >> bits/registers (discussion on the top), it makes sense to keep the compatibility >> on this parameter? > > This is userspace compatibility, so lets not break it. > Btw can we have a sysfs entry per device for defining irq_type. Having a sysfs > entry might be helpful instead of insmod/rmmod with different irq_type values? Can you explain it? An sysfs entry where, on RC side? How this will work with the irq allocation/deallocation in runtime? > It will also help if a system has enumerated multiple PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST EP devices. Can you elaborate more this idea? > > Thanks > Kishon > Regards, Gustavo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com> To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>, "bhelgaas@google.com" <bhelgaas@google.com>, "lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>, "Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com" <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com>, "jingoohan1@gmail.com" <jingoohan1@gmail.com>, "adouglas@cadence.com" <adouglas@cadence.com>, "niklas.cassel@axis.com" <niklas.cassel@axis.com>, "jesper.nilsson@axis.com" <jesper.nilsson@axis.com> Cc: "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC 06/10] misc: pci_endpoint_test: Add MSI-X support Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 16:36:42 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <ac362508-8322-e4f0-fb70-d0b76198c7bc@synopsys.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <aa1c6446-bcf4-1cdb-d900-22e5d6fa4cab@ti.com> Hi Kishon, On 24/04/2018 12:43, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > Hi, > > On Tuesday 24 April 2018 04:27 PM, Gustavo Pimentel wrote: >> Hi Kishon, >> >> On 24/04/2018 08:19, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tuesday 17 April 2018 11:08 PM, Gustavo Pimentel wrote: >>>> Hi Kishon, >>>> >>>> On 17/04/2018 11:33, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday 10 April 2018 10:44 PM, Gustavo Pimentel wrote: >>>>>> Adds the MSI-X support and updates driver documentation accordingly. >>>>>> >>>>>> Changes the driver parameter in order to allow the interruption type >>>>>> selection. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Documentation/misc-devices/pci-endpoint-test.txt | 3 + >>>>>> drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c | 102 +++++++++++++++++------ >>>>>> 2 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/misc-devices/pci-endpoint-test.txt b/Documentation/misc-devices/pci-endpoint-test.txt >>>>>> index 4ebc359..fdfa0f6 100644 >>>>>> --- a/Documentation/misc-devices/pci-endpoint-test.txt >>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/misc-devices/pci-endpoint-test.txt >>>>>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ The PCI driver for the test device performs the following tests >>>>>> *) verifying addresses programmed in BAR >>>>>> *) raise legacy IRQ >>>>>> *) raise MSI IRQ >>>>>> + *) raise MSI-X IRQ >>>>>> *) read data >>>>>> *) write data >>>>>> *) copy data >>>>>> @@ -25,6 +26,8 @@ ioctl >>>>>> PCITEST_LEGACY_IRQ: Tests legacy IRQ >>>>>> PCITEST_MSI: Tests message signalled interrupts. The MSI number >>>>>> to be tested should be passed as argument. >>>>>> + PCITEST_MSIX: Tests message signalled interrupts. The MSI-X number >>>>>> + to be tested should be passed as argument. >>>>>> PCITEST_WRITE: Perform write tests. The size of the buffer should be passed >>>>>> as argument. >>>>>> PCITEST_READ: Perform read tests. The size of the buffer should be passed >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c b/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c >>>>>> index 37db0fc..a7d9354 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c >>>>>> @@ -42,11 +42,16 @@ >>>>>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_COMMAND 0x4 >>>>>> #define COMMAND_RAISE_LEGACY_IRQ BIT(0) >>>>>> #define COMMAND_RAISE_MSI_IRQ BIT(1) >>>>>> -#define MSI_NUMBER_SHIFT 2 >>>>>> -/* 6 bits for MSI number */ >>>>>> -#define COMMAND_READ BIT(8) >>>>>> -#define COMMAND_WRITE BIT(9) >>>>>> -#define COMMAND_COPY BIT(10) >>>>>> +#define COMMAND_RAISE_MSIX_IRQ BIT(2) >>>>>> +#define IRQ_TYPE_SHIFT 3 >>>>>> +#define IRQ_TYPE_LEGACY 0 >>>>>> +#define IRQ_TYPE_MSI 1 >>>>>> +#define IRQ_TYPE_MSIX 2 >>>>>> +#define MSI_NUMBER_SHIFT 5 >>>>> >>>>> Now that you are anyways fixing this, add a new register entry for MSI numbers. >>>>> Let's not keep COMMAND and MSI's together. >>>> >>>> What you suggest? >>> >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_COMMAND 0x4 >>> #define COMMAND_RAISE_LEGACY_IRQ BIT(0) >>> #define COMMAND_RAISE_MSI_IRQ BIT(1) >>> #define COMMAND_RAISE_MSIX_IRQ BIT(2) >>> #define COMMAND_READ BIT(3) >>> #define COMMAND_WRITE BIT(4) >>> #define COMMAND_COPY BIT(5) >>> >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_STATUS 0x8 >>> #define STATUS_READ_SUCCESS BIT(0) >>> #define STATUS_READ_FAIL BIT(1) >>> #define STATUS_WRITE_SUCCESS BIT(2) >>> #define STATUS_WRITE_FAIL BIT(3) >>> #define STATUS_COPY_SUCCESS BIT(4) >>> #define STATUS_COPY_FAIL BIT(5) >>> #define STATUS_IRQ_RAISED BIT(6) >>> #define STATUS_SRC_ADDR_INVALID BIT(7) >>> #define STATUS_DST_ADDR_INVALID BIT(8) >>> >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_LOWER_SRC_ADDR 0xc >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_UPPER_SRC_ADDR 0x10 >>> >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_LOWER_DST_ADDR 0x14 >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_UPPER_DST_ADDR 0x18 >>> >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_SIZE 0x1c >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_CHECKSUM 0x20 >>> >>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_MSI_NUMBER 0x24 >> >> Ok. I will do it. >> >>> >>> We should try not to modify either the existing register offsets or the bit >>> fields within these registers in the future as EP and RC will be running on >>> different systems and it is possible one of them might not have the updated >>> kernel. >> >> I totally agree. >> >>>> >>>>>> +/* 12 bits for MSI number */ >>>>>> +#define COMMAND_READ BIT(17) >>>>>> +#define COMMAND_WRITE BIT(18) >>>>>> +#define COMMAND_COPY BIT(19) >>>>> >>>>> This change should be done along with the pci-epf-test in a single patch. >>>> >>>> To be clear, you're saying is this patch should be just be squashed into the >>>> patch number 8 [1], because there is a lot of dependencies namely the defines, >>>> that is used on the alter functions. >>>> >>>> [1] -> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__patchwork.ozlabs.org_patch_896841_&d=DwIC-g&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=bkWxpLoW-f-E3EdiDCCa0_h0PicsViasSlvIpzZvPxs&m=8urVwHCybXa1XMxsEbwHZAzzaEI_HJGXqmWgXpXb9TY&s=MRVr2YPY2Bk_WNFOxBfU4FGrFReTKdPhfzNDLiVxDbs&e= >>> >>> yeah. We have to make sure git bisect doesn't break functionality. >> >> Ok, it'll be squashed. >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_STATUS 0x8 >>>>>> #define STATUS_READ_SUCCESS BIT(0) >>>>>> @@ -73,9 +78,9 @@ static DEFINE_IDA(pci_endpoint_test_ida); >>>>>> #define to_endpoint_test(priv) container_of((priv), struct pci_endpoint_test, \ >>>>>> miscdev) >>>>>> >>>>>> -static bool no_msi; >>>>>> -module_param(no_msi, bool, 0444); >>>>>> -MODULE_PARM_DESC(no_msi, "Disable MSI interrupt in pci_endpoint_test"); >>>>> >>>>> Let's not remove this just to make sure existing users doesn't get affected. >>>> >>>> Hum, by making an internal conversion? Like this >>>> no_msi = false <=> irq_type = 1 >>>> no_msi = true <=> irq_type = 0 >>> >> Disregard previous comment, it doesn't make sense. I don't know where my head was. >> >> It will be like this on probe: >> >> if (no_msi) >> irq_type = IRQ_TYPE_LEGACY; >> >> However since we are breaking the compatibility on terms of MSI/MSI-X >> bits/registers (discussion on the top), it makes sense to keep the compatibility >> on this parameter? > > This is userspace compatibility, so lets not break it. > Btw can we have a sysfs entry per device for defining irq_type. Having a sysfs > entry might be helpful instead of insmod/rmmod with different irq_type values? Can you explain it? An sysfs entry where, on RC side? How this will work with the irq allocation/deallocation in runtime? > It will also help if a system has enumerated multiple PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST EP devices. Can you elaborate more this idea? > > Thanks > Kishon > Regards, Gustavo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-26 15:38 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-04-10 17:14 [RFC 00/10] Adds pcitest tool support for MSI-X Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` [RFC 01/10] PCI: dwc: Add MSI-X callbacks handler Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-16 9:29 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I 2018-04-16 9:29 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I 2018-04-23 9:36 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-23 9:36 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-24 7:07 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I 2018-04-24 7:07 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I 2018-04-24 9:36 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-24 9:36 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-24 11:24 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I 2018-04-24 11:24 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I 2018-04-26 15:30 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-26 15:30 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-24 14:05 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-24 14:05 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-24 14:05 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-24 9:15 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-24 9:15 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-24 9:15 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-24 11:43 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-24 11:43 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-05-10 10:40 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-05-10 10:40 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` [RFC 02/10] PCI: cadence: Update cdns_pcie_ep_raise_irq function signature Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-13 16:05 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-13 16:05 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-13 16:05 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-10 17:14 ` [RFC 03/10] PCI: endpoint: Add MSI-X interfaces Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-17 10:24 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I 2018-04-17 10:24 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I 2018-04-17 15:51 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-17 15:51 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` [RFC 04/10] PCI: dwc: MSI callbacks handler rework Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` [RFC 05/10] PCI: dwc: Add legacy interrupt callback handler Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` [RFC 06/10] misc: pci_endpoint_test: Add MSI-X support Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-17 10:33 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I 2018-04-17 10:33 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I 2018-04-17 17:38 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-17 17:38 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-24 7:19 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I 2018-04-24 7:19 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I 2018-04-24 10:57 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-24 10:57 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-24 11:43 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I 2018-04-24 11:43 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I 2018-04-26 15:36 ` Gustavo Pimentel [this message] 2018-04-26 15:36 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-24 6:59 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-24 6:59 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-24 6:59 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-24 11:11 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-24 11:11 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` [RFC 07/10] misc: pci_endpoint_test: Replace lower into upper case characters Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` [RFC 08/10] PCI: endpoint: functions/pci-epf-test: Add MSI-X support Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` [RFC 09/10] PCI: endpoint: functions/pci-epf-test: Replace lower into upper case characters Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` [RFC 10/10] tools: PCI: Add MSI-X support Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-10 17:14 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-24 9:57 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-24 9:57 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-24 9:57 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-24 17:18 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-24 17:18 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-24 6:48 ` [RFC 00/10] Adds pcitest tool support for MSI-X Alan Douglas 2018-04-24 6:48 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-24 6:48 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-24 8:49 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-24 8:49 ` Gustavo Pimentel 2018-04-24 9:28 ` Alan Douglas 2018-04-24 9:28 ` Alan Douglas
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=ac362508-8322-e4f0-fb70-d0b76198c7bc@synopsys.com \ --to=gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com \ --cc=Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com \ --cc=adouglas@cadence.com \ --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \ --cc=jesper.nilsson@axis.com \ --cc=jingoohan1@gmail.com \ --cc=kishon@ti.com \ --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \ --cc=niklas.cassel@axis.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.