From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933899AbbJIJCs (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2015 05:02:48 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:38035 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933103AbbJIJCp (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2015 05:02:45 -0400 Message-ID: <561782AF.4080408@arm.com> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:02:39 +0100 From: Marc Zyngier Organization: ARM Ltd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bharat Kumar Gogada , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "pawel.moll@arm.com" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk" , "galak@codeaurora.org" , Michal Simek , Soren Brinkmann , "bhelgaas@google.com" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "tinamdar@apm.com" , "treding@nvidia.com" , "rjui@broadcom.com" , "Minghuan.Lian@freescale.com" , "m-karicheri2@ti.com" , "hauke@hauke-m.de" CC: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Ravikiran Gummaluri , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: Xilinx-NWL-PCIe: Added support for Xilinx NWL PCIe Host Controller References: <1444146289-28940-1-git-send-email-bharatku@xilinx.com> <5613F310.6060305@arm.com> <8520D5D51A55D047800579B0941471980169063F@XAP-PVEXMBX01.xlnx.xilinx.com> <5613F9C8.9020000@arm.com> <8520D5D51A55D047800579B09414719801690CD0@XAP-PVEXMBX01.xlnx.xilinx.com> <56177669.2000302@arm.com> <8520D5D51A55D047800579B09414719801690D3D@XAP-PVEXMBX01.xlnx.xilinx.com> In-Reply-To: <8520D5D51A55D047800579B09414719801690D3D@XAP-PVEXMBX01.xlnx.xilinx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/10/15 09:51, Bharat Kumar Gogada wrote: >> On 09/10/15 06:11, Bharat Kumar Gogada wrote: >>>>>> +struct nwl_msi { /* struct nwl_msi - MSI information >>>> */ >>>>>> + struct msi_controller chip; /* chip: MSI controller */ >>>>> >>>>>> We're moving away from msi_controller altogether, as the kernel now >>>>>> has all the necessary infrastructure to do this properly. >>>>> >>>>> Our current GIC version does not have separate msi controller (we >>>>> are not using GICv2m or GICv3), so is it necessary to have separate >>>>> msi controller node ? Please give me clarity on this. >>>> >>>> This has nothing to do with the version of the GIC you are using >>>> (XGene doesn't have GICv2m or v3 either). This is about reducing code >>>> duplication and having something that we can maintain. See also >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/20/193 for yet another example. >>>> >>>> I still plan to kill msi_controller, and I'd like to avoid more >>>> dependencies with it. MSI domains are the way to do it. >>>> >>> Sorry previously I haven't configured my email client properly so resending. >> >> Thanks for doing so, much appreciated. >> >>> Since we don't have separate MSI controller, and our PCIe controller >>> is handling MSI, is it necessary to create a separate MSI controller >>> node because we don't have any 'reg' space. >> >> No, your PCI controller can perfectly be part of the PCIe node. > You meant 'msi-controller' property to be part of PCIe node? Yeah, sorry. Too early, not enough coffee. >> >>> Please let me know whether we require a separate msi file as suggested >>> in your previous comments to separate MSI controller and PCIE >>> controller in two files, if we don't have separate node. If we do not >>> need a separate node do we need to embed MSI controller child node in >>> PCIe controller node itself, and what properties does this child node >>> will require other than 'interrupts'. >> >> If you want to keep them in the same file, please at least have two separate >> patches. These are two different functions, and they should be reviewed >> separately. >> > What I meant is if we don't have separate msi node do we need separate file? That's up to you. Nodes and source code files don't have to match at all. > If you meant msi controller to be part of same node then we will use single file and will > try to have two separate patches. That's fine by me. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...