RE: Updated MSI Patches

["Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>]

> For the legacy devices, an irq_vector mapping should be sufficient as
you
> currently maintain. You could also possibly have a seperate do_MSI
which
> gets a vector pushed to it and then uses mesc_desc instead to do the
> handlers. You then install the IDT entry using the seperate MSI
interrupt
> stub; set_intr_gate(vector, msi_interrupt[msi_num]) where
msi_interrupt is
> a NR_MSI sized array. This way you can avoid touching do_IRQ entirely.

The issue with do_MSI() approach is that it's very similar to do_IRQ(),
and we may have maintenance issues there. However, if we make a common
do_MSI() code, that might be worth it, and I would expect much fewer
architecture-dependent issues there, compared to do_IRQ (the common
do_IRQ() hasn't happened yet as far as I know).

Thanks,
Jun

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zwane Mwaikambo [mailto:zwane@linuxpower.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 11:11 AM
> To: Nguyen, Tom L
> Cc: Linux Kernel; Nakajima, Jun; long
> Subject: RE: Updated MSI Patches
> 
> Your message would be easier to reply to and read if it was wrapped at
72
> characters, please look into fixing that for the sake of your
recipients.
> Thanks.
> 
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Nguyen, Tom L wrote:
> 
> > I understand that mixing up vector and irq is very confusing.
However,
> > to support non-PCI legacy devices with IRQ less than 16, such as
> > keyboard and mouse for example, may be impossilbe to achieve without
> > mixing up. Some existing driver of legacy keyboard/mouse devices,
for
> > example, may use fixed IO ranges and fixed IRQs (as assigned to 1
for
> > keyboard and 12 for mouse). If these device drivers use these fixed
> > legacy IRQs and the interrupt routings for these non-PCI legacy
devices
> > use vectors, then the system may break. As you know, MSI support
> > requires vector allocation instead of IRQ allocation since MSI does
not
> > require a support of BIOS IRQ table. Mixing vector with IRQ to be
> > compatible with non-PCI legacy devices must be achieved. Last time,
> > your suggestion of changing variable name from irq to vector is the
> > good approach. I am looking at restructuring the code of the
> > vector-base patch. I will send you an update when I am done for your
> > feedback.
> 
> For the legacy devices, an irq_vector mapping should be sufficient as
you
> currently maintain. You could also possibly have a seperate do_MSI
which
> gets a vector pushed to it and then uses mesc_desc instead to do the
> handlers. You then install the IDT entry using the seperate MSI
interrupt
> stub; set_intr_gate(vector, msi_interrupt[msi_num]) where
msi_interrupt is
> a NR_MSI sized array. This way you can avoid touching do_IRQ entirely.
> 
> > Since the code determinces whether this entry is NULL or not, I
think
> any
> > locking for msi_desc may not be required.
> 
> Yes but there is other code which modifies msi_desc members. i think a
per
> msi_desc lock is needed. You could also use a kmem_cache to allocate
them,
> and perhaps utilise HWCACHE_ALIGN.
> 
> 	Zwane